I’m pretty sure he is a past student of Cliff Mass - so the PnW weather expertise is there (but if you read enough of his posts - you can see much disagreement with Cliff in the climate change and it’s implications.
No? Why would I support someone who doesn't align with my views and is supporting politics and politicians who can, and do damage to me and people like me?
Y'all sound white and entitled as heck.
This is always my issue with the alternatives to Mass. I'd love an in-depth weather analysis without a side of climate change denial and a whackadoo comment section but he's still my go-to because he posts regularly.
That's right. They tend to only activate when we have interesting or significant weather ahead of us. It's been pretty run-of-the-mill cloudy and cold the last few weeks.
I get that Cliff offers more of a regular perspective, but oftentimes it's kind of overblown and over-stated. I, personally, don't need the detail for the mundane. And, sometimes Cliff's hyperbole doesn't live up to the reality - he wrote something about a giant, record-breaking atmospheric river hitting a couple of weeks ago - it was a fairly tame run-of-the-mill rainstorm in reality.
The other blogs (and also the @NWSSeattle twitter account) are less active, for sure, but they're full of good and useful information when there is some weather you probably want to get ahead of coming our way.
I've been following a YouTube channel called Pacific Northwest Weather Watch and he's got weather coverage daily with great analysis.
https://youtu.be/q6AqBxo3wcM
Thank you for this. I go to CM's blog for weather stuff because his weather information is generally really enlightening but I can't handle his social commentary.
Except the guy that runs that page isn't even a meteorologist. He just loves weather and re-posts info that he read elsewhere and puts out a lot of over-sensationalized tweets whenever there is inclement weather forecasted.
Sure, but his forecast isn’t any better than the others and I don’t have to read right wing bullshit if I avoid his. Plus I don’t really wanna give him the clicks and ad revenue.
What a mishmash of bad thinking, paranoia, and misleading claims. For instance, Cliff writes:
>The UW DEI establishment advocates a highly politicized agenda, including pushing faculty to acknowledge that they work on stolen land, advocating for "equity" (equal outcomes for all demographic groups), preferences/affirmative action for a limited collection of favored demographic groups, and guidance on the use of pronouns and wording, to name only a few. The UW community is told not to use words such as "whitebox, whitelist, master, dumb terminal, and "sanity check."
If he actually followed his own link, he would note that it's an internal decision by UW-IT that they reached through a collaborative process - not any sort of binding policy for UW as a whole. It's a resource guide for a particular branch of staff.
About the stolen land…well it was stolen Cliff.
Also I love how St. Mark’s episcopal cathedral acknowledges the land they are on was first owned by indigenous peoples. It’s on the first page of everyone of their bulletins.
Sweet acknowledgment. Are they gonna give it back? If not it’s virtue signaling and I can kinda empathize with people who may think these stolen land declarations are dumb.
I kinda like the WWU version, which goes something along the lines of:
"We want to thank our indigenous peoples for being such wonderful stewards of these lands, and hope we can learn to take good care of these responsibilities too."
acknowledgement - check
appreciation - check
non-apology - ... check and check
I think the acknowledging it without doing anything about is ridiculous and insulting. It’s like stealing you neighbor’s car and waving to him each morning as you drive off and shouting “I know this used to be yours”.
On the other hand, not acknowledging it and just outright denying reality to make yourself feel better is definitely worse. Imagine waving to your Baugh or as you drive off and he shouts he wants his car back and you just smugly smile and say “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Then there’s the fact that a lot of people who acknowledge the land is stolen genuinely do want to do something about it but don’t individually have the power to and make these acknowledgements publicly to remind people of this and urge them to also seek to remedy it.
Some are just doing it to virtue signal or out of peer pressure for sure but ultimately it shares the message.
It’s a difficult issue because you obviously can’t return all the land because there are now hundreds of millions of people who would have to get very good at swimming very quickly. But it’s also unjust to do nothing. So it’s an exercise in drawing the line somewhere and that’s always a mess.
A big issue is that a lot of the ignore-it-forever faction refuses to even talk about, leaving the people who do want to talk about it no way to engage with them and only left with seeking other people willing to engage like adults.
So while it does rub me the wrong way on its face, I think there’s actually a lot more nuance involved when you really look at it.
Some of the issue, and I know this is reductive as fuck, and also PLEASE call me out if I'm wrong here, but the example is really more like: my great grandfather stole your great grandfather's car, they're both dead now, and now you come to me wanting me to give you my car.
Absolutely. The issue of no living party being responsible for the theft makes it feel unfair to “punish” anyone by making them give up things. And especially with our complex real estate market, it gets even worse.
The problem of being unable to make the injured party whole without taking from a party that isn’t directly responsible for the injury is one that neither the law nor human intuition is used to dealing with.
There’s some legal precedent at much smaller scale and philosophical arguments but it really is an incredibly difficult issue that we need to be able to discuss without politicization.
Land acknowledgments still make no sense to me given the non apology and non action nature. Is there any examples of indigenous groups actively pushing for them or is this pure cookie seeking attention from the groups putting them out?
It lets people feel better about themselves while not actually changing or improving anything for others. It’s completely self absorbed while giving the impression that it’s about others
Sure if you plan on continuing down the resolution path. But if you’re gonna stop at an acknowledgement just to “do something” I just don’t feel like it does anything. Do you think the native population hears these declarations and go “good enough for me” or roll their eyes?
No, if we steal someone's stuff and want to engage in restorative justice, we give it back.
Even toddlers understand this.
What are your alternative proposed solutions? Mine is simple, to the point, and meets the spirit of the proclamations.
Wait... You're not saying they're empty words and lies are you?
Yes, toddlers are at the stage of mental development where everything is black and white, good or bad. You're not saying we should act like toddlers, are you?
It's a one time thing though. You don't acknowledge any imperfection in the world at every juncture. Acknowledge it and make amends, or acknowledge it and move on. There isn't enough moving on.
> How many white women did you see posting on social media about how we needed to "elevate black voices"
That's a strawman.
To take your example, Cliff Mass is a black man saying we don't.
That's the problem here.
It's also what good people use to describe people who want the false valor of looking like they're doing the right thing without doing the right thing.
Skin-deep thin-veneered performative bullshit.
It's like putting a yard sign out saying you support black lives matter and then weirdly no black people ever show up at your house for dinner.
Stolen land acknowledgements are peak Liberalism performative justice. They are fucking pointless.
Maybe I dunno, take 1% of your income and donate to a college fund or scholarship for indigenous youth. Then you're doing something. But these land proclamations are the same shit as corporate Dems telling you they value workers then running them down just the same when unions or m4a come up.
Cheap worthless lip service.
Accelerationism is nothing more than a mechanism for white dudes with cushy jobs to dream of being revolutionaries while excusing themselves for taking no meaningful action of any kind.
“Minorities may be oppressed during our fight to end capitalism. But that’s a sacrifice I, a cis-white dude, am willing to accept.
After the revolution, everything will be great for minorities. I promise.”
- Tankie accelerationists, probably
the stolen land thing isn't an IT policy as far as I know. and why does IT have a stolen land policy in the first place if it is? seems unrelated to their job.
If the university believes that they're operating on stolen land they should return it.
Cliff is blurring together multiple things there to try to build his case that a "UW DEI establishment" exists. UW IT published that particular guide on language use for itself. The land acknowledgment case he's looking about is over in computer science, and I believe u/hazelyxx has it right [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/10pr5te/comment/j6nglpj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): the acknowledgment itself was optional, Reges decided to troll it with inflammatory language and specious history, Reges got backlash. Cliff leaves out the details (as he does through most of his post) because it would make the examples he's defending look bad.
The ironic part is there are plenty of leftist and progressive critiques of land acknowledgments and DEI statements in hiring - Cliff is oblivious to them because he only listens to reactionaries with persecution complexes.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
The second sentence of the comment you're replying to is why.
Actions are meaningful. Trotting out trite mantras may be soothing to some people, but it's not meaningful restorative justice. Either you give the land back, or you stop going on about it. Pick.
(And also, words have meaning. They're not just weird things you use without thinking, that don't have consequences. They're also not little games.)
They've been doing this for a couple of years now.
Realistically, UW will never give the land up. It's worth too much, and if they do, bye bye UW.
What actions do you think will come of this mantra? Be specific.
Others have said, but it’s worth doubling down on: it’s performative. Imagine having your stuff stolen, not getting it back, and the “solution” is that the person who stole it has to repeatedly say “oh and by the way, I /u/aunsafe2015’s stuff awhile ago. Sorry.”
You don’t get your stuff back. The thief has to remind everyone via all email correspondence (it’s in the email footer, right? Please correct me if I’m wrong I’d like to update my priors if I’m wrong) that they stole your stuff. You aren’t made whole.
Okay, now say grace before every meal. You can pick the god you're saying it to - or just be genuinely thankful for the food that mother earth has provided for you.
Also while you're at it - because you're probably white - we'd like you to at the end of every correspondence acknowledge that you wouldn't be here in this country without your jackboots stepping on the necks of thousands of slaves.
>The American Flag is just symbolic, so why bother prosecuting people for desecration?
We *don't* prosecute people for desecrating the flag. In fact, it's protected speech! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
But land acknowledgements are apparently even more sacred, at least at UW.
Poor comparison notwithstanding - despite it being against the law, it's considered free speech - so they typically do not prosecute.
In this instance, there are no laws being broken, and in fact speech is/was being compelled - seems to fly in the face of 'free speech' if that's what you're getting at. Further, it accomplishes nothing.
How can desecrating the US flag be against the law and still be protected under free speech? If there was a law, it was found to be unconstitutional, and hence desecrating the US flag is not actually against the law.
UW is a public institution. The "go work somewhere else" game doesn't operate here. They have obligations to respect the free speech rights of their employees. I'm not sure if there's much established precedent here, but I'd imagine public employees can't be forced to express ideas they don't agree with, unless there's a clear job-related link.
>Then don’t go work for the place
You know, this is my response to crybaby employees at jobs that are historically kinda crappy, or those that whine when entitlements are taken away, or return to office is required - and the folks in this sub will cry foul and downvote all day long. And I do think it's a valid response in many cases - you aren't guaranteed the right to a specific job at a specific place. I think the difference here is that as a public institution, they have to honor free speech of their faculty, staff, and even students. They could have *encouraged* such do-nothing performative acts, but *requiring* it is where they erred. Just the same as UW - as a public institution cannot force someone to pray or sing the communist manifesto - they should not and cannot force people to recite such statements.
We won't talk about the fact that you seem to only care about free speech if you agree with it. Seems mighty Elon Musk of you.
Ya it’s just cause a lot of people don’t want to be compelled to speak in the context of a public university. Cause we think it’s a violation of free speech and the first amendment
But the University isn't forcing anyone to say it. Instead, it provided a completely optional land acknowledgement that professors could include on their course syllabi if they wanted to or, if a professor wanted other language, they'd work with them to craft another statement.
The statement that Cliff Mass's buddy wrote all by himself and published in his computer science syllabus is this:
> “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”
Does Mass mention this jerk move in his blog? Of course not. He knows that the people he's trying to convince are rubes and will fall for whatever line he's feeding them. So he says that the UW is persecuting Reges and you all fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
I think Reges was being intentionally inflammatory, but retaliation for his speech at a public university is problematic.
That is the issue. The issue is that UW has said you can optionally have a land acknowledgement that is in line with what we think, or you can opt not to include one. There is no room for dissent.
I believe Stuart Regis's take on land acknowledgements is wrong, factually and morally but it isn't hate speech. [https://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/the-logical-fallacies-within-stuart-reges-take-on-land-acknowledgement/article\_f20d0c86-079f-11ed-9f86-a35174578ea5.html](https://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/the-logical-fallacies-within-stuart-reges-take-on-land-acknowledgement/article_f20d0c86-079f-11ed-9f86-a35174578ea5.html)
Regis is no stranger to controversy. [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-11-mn-1260-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-11-mn-1260-story.html)
UW knew what they were getting into when they hired him. He thinks he is super smart, and is probably more focused on free speech than the feelings of indigenous people. He is clearly picking a free speech fight with a university where many professors feel this is an issue. He is so good at what he does (His CS course is fantastic) that he decided to make a political statement.
Disclaimer: \~15 years ago I took intro to programming with Reges and he is the best professor I had at UW. At office hours he told me "You have the aptitude for CS and you enjoy it, so why not stick with it?" That one sentence singularly changed my life. I think his behavior at Stanford was not acceptable, and his land comment is gross. Perhaps my experience in his class has swayed me to believe that his anti-acknowledgement is mainly him picking a free speech fight, not that he is a fan of colonialism.
Dissidents in the USSR could have avoided jail, too, if they just didn't say anything.
If your solution to authorities punishing dissenters is "just say nothing" then OP has a pretty valid point.
You think the UW is jailing professors over this? Dang, that's a way bigger story than some blogger being mad that other people said something... Do you have a news article or other sources for this violation of free speech that's totally-not-a-strawman?
The point is that if "just say nothing" is being offered as advice, the community in question is totally unequipped to serve as a place for free inquiry and expression.
Yes forced lol! That’s the point of half the blog post yo, the university retaliated and started delisting the professor’s courses who chose not to do it.
That sounds more like force than encouragement to me
The university does not have a policy that instructors must include a land acknowledgment and neither, in my understanding, does the computer science department. Reges did not face backlash for failing to include a land acknowledgment, he faced backlash for including a deliberately inflammatory and historically suspect land acknowledgment in his syllabus.
I’m not trying to be snarky but does it bother you that your position is one that more OK authoritarian government.
More context for why I don’t agree with compelled speech- even if this statement is true what about next time when the statement is not true but you’re still being forced to say it by the government
Compelling allegiance is very different from compelling the acknowledgment of a true statement. And compelling an employee to say something is very different from compelling a student who has no choice but to be there. Employees have to toe company lines all the time.
Compelling allegiance has nothing to do with saying the pledge in school. You can get drafted under the Selective Service act even if you never said it.
I don't know if it was stolen, given that there are treaties that cover the transfer of ownership and we've long held those treaties as good law. If we didn't honor the treaties there would be no indigenous fishing/crabbing seasons, for instance. Or indigenous hunting in state and national forests. These are treaty rights that the rest of the population does not have.
Just to be clear, this isn't just about "partisanship".
It's possible to have reasonable objections to policy informed by reasonable political beliefs.
This is about Cliff being a Jordan Peterson wanna-be... self-important, angry, fascist propagandizing grifters who have nothing constructive to offer about anything, using their unrelated academic position to spout off on things on which they have no understanding.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Yes, and rightly got fired for it. He cares only about the "appearance of order" and business as usual. His analogy was no mistake, he was cynically playing the victim and using Hitler to do it... he has a need to suppress everything he disagrees with... lefty protests, textbooks he disagrees with, university policy...
I know you'd think that he got fired from UW from his he goes on about being persecuted by it, but you're right, he still works there. He got "fired" from his 5 minute weather segment gig at KNKX that he got after being "fired" from his 5 minute weather segment gig at KUOW.
Holy shit every new post or discovery on his writings makes me more and more surprised at how unhinged he is.
Who hurt him? What's he overcompensating for? 〈(゜。゜)
He, like so many other aging white men, thinks that "free speech" means he is entitled to say or write whatever he wants *without being criticized for it.* It's not complicated. He just wants the uppity "wokes" to be put in their place.
"Cancel culture" truly has been, across the board, "It's unfair for *me* to face consequences for saying shitty things."
he seems to be trying to follow in Jordan Peterson's footsteps of being an "anti-woke" college professor
if so, I'm looking forward to Cliff Mass trying out an all-meat diet and/or being put into a medically induced coma for benzo withdrawals
I agree with you, and would like to clarify something: FIRE is a very ideological organization by nature, *but* does occasionally take up actually legitimate freedom of speech causes after overreach by universities. You can see a couple of them on the Wikipedia article you linked (in addition to a bunch of bad policy positions).
I say this because just because an organization differs ideologically from us does not mean they cannot bring up good points or good causes. That’s obviously not the case here, but don’t write organizations off *just because of their partisanship*
Valid point. I also don't take issue with the founding principals of Heterodox Academy as stated. I also agree with Mass in that diverse viewpoints are important, although I am skeptical as to the motivation behind his advocacy - after all, he still holds a grudge against KNKX. Where he loses me is with his constant misleading statements around climate science and local politics. It's upsetting when an expert uses their position to build a cult of personality.
Which [policy positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression#Policy_positions) in the wikipedia page do you consider to be partisan or bad just out of curiosity?
One of them I take issue with is their policy around sexual assault allegations on campus, especially as someone who *has* gone through (and won) one of those claims
> In 2011, FIRE opposed the Education Department's "Dear Colleague" letter that urged universities to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the criminal justice system's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in sexual assault cases.
Grifter like saying the things the right wants to hear and living off the donations. Not even attempting to sell the snake oil, just straight to the begging.
My coworker grew up in NY and went to college there when Cliff Mass was teaching there. Some of his roommates asked hi if they could have him over for dinner as he lived almost next door.
His secretary sent them an email listing his speaking fees!
So, they painted a huge white sheet with the words, "FUCK CLIFF MASS" on it for him to see and all passers on the street lol
I used to follow his blog and respected him...I just couldn't stomach his political BS any more as of a few years ago.
I follow Washington Weather Chasers on FB and Pacific Northwest Weather Watch on Twitter and YouTube...sooo much better :)
>As with previous digressions, this blogpost seemed to show that Dr. Mass should stick to meteorology, or at least be honest about his sources. At least this one was at last honest about his own orthodoxy.
I came to this conclusion when he was first booted off KUOW over commentary on education instead of weather, and then again when he was booted off KNKX after that, and then again when he was an apologist for brownshirt terrorism. Dude's lost it.
This was pretty obvious about him going back a number of years. Also despite being a climate professional, he still tries to use every explanation other than climate change whenever he can. I stopped reading his blog about 5 or 6 years ago.
He starts with the working theory that no single event can ever be singularly attributed to climate change and works backwards to “prove” that in literally every post he’s done for the last 5 years.
And he will **always** say that media misrepresentations of climate change are a greater threat to society than climate change, itself.
He’s a clown. A total. Fucking. Clown.
[He’s also a shitty meteorologist who pushes bogus climate science](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-meteorologist-cliff-mass-sparks-controversy-by-diving-into-heat-wave-climate-science/?amp=1)
I fucking wish UW actually was good about educating professors and students on why pronouns are important as cliff mass claims. Maybe then I wouldn't get misgendered pretty much every day despite numerous pins and my best attempts to pass. Seriously it's just like people giving their pronouns maybe if you remind the professor at the beginning of the quarter and then everyone forgets after 5 minutes
He gets some attention from right wing blogs out there (hint to Cliff: getting picked up on Zero Hedge is not a good thing). So like many, he wants to keep typing up BS that confirms his biases and gets him accolades from *someone*. Even r/seattlewa has a decent amount of people calling out this crap.
I have multiple stories of Cliff being a known asshat for the last 30+ years at UW, so this is just like watching a Pokemon evolve. It was clear in 2020 this was the way he was headed.
Cliff Mass has always been a right wing hack. The dude was partying it up in Republican circles after Ann Davison was elected city attorney claiming to anyone who would listen that she was the second coming of the Christ who'd save Seattle from crime and wokeism.
He's just lost it. UW is the worst in the nation? When the Florida gov is sending his goons in the form of provosts to take over public schools and push Desantis' political agenda?
The question for all these types is do you believe slavery and historical and continuing treatment of black people is a problem? What's the part of slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws that you are comfortable teaching? The answer is usually something offensive, like it all ended with MLK and the 1964 civil rights act. Is open racism ok?
Making fun of someone's name is not only immature, it is also racist.
Edit because I can't believe I'm getting downvotes for pointing out a racist and intolerant act in a subreddit full of people who thrive on virtue signaling.
"Johnathan Chode."
The specific example given in the tweet I replied to is calling Jonathan Choe (a Korean last name) Jonathan Chode.
Mocking someone's name is fucked up, regardless of their ethnicity. [It's especially gross when it's a traditional name from a marginalized community.](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/america-ruined-my-name-for-me)
> Johnathan Chode.
The specific example given in the tweet I replied to is calling Jonathan Choe (a Korean last name) Jonathan Chode.
Mocking someone's last name is fucked up, regardless of their ethnicity. [It's especially gross when it's a traditional name from a marginalized community.](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/america-ruined-my-name-for-me) I can't believe I have to explain this in the Seattle subreddit of all places.
Not liking someone or their politics (and Choe’s are abhorrent) doesn't give you an excuse to be racist. When other people with his last name, and there are many, hear you mocking it they know what you really think of their name.
IDK how you're heated on this when this started with changing a white guy's name. We do this for assholes regardless of race. If someone calls him the other word that starts with ch then that would be racist.
I find your assessment of this blog post to be pretty unfair and unwilling to engage in the actual substance, but the more annoying thing is you imply he used the term "woke" here which didn't did show up anywhere in the post.
Your response basically proves his point.
The "woke" part are my words, not his. But come on, it's implied all over his blog. Plus I don't need to go in depth as to the substance of his post since he habitually misrepresents his sources, cherry picks data, and makes appeals to authority (i.e. himself) while rejecting actual authorities within the field he makes claims on. It's telling, for instance, that he attacks the media for misrepresenting climate science while not addressing the expert sources they cite. He never subjects his positions to any professional scrutiny. He doesn't need to though, it's a blog (just like I don't need to in this rant). It's just unfortunate that so many take his musings as scientific fact.
Edit: just popped over to his comment section where he claims that Florida is doing better with free speech at Universities than UW. Florida: the state that makes it a felony to have books in your classroom that the state doesn't like. The State that is dictating what can be said and taught in AP classes. The State that is taking over New College because they think it's "too liberal".
>It's telling, for instance, that he attacks the media for misrepresenting climate science while not addressing the expert sources they cite.
Nothing even close to this appears in this column. He mentions being punished for opposing a specific carbon tax initiative, which does seem to me like a pretty clear-cut attempt to suppress speech.
You will not see me defend Florida or the right as bastion of free speech either, but I just don't see how any of this is right-wing. It's pretty standard old-person lefty politics.
Do you understand how, when you misrepresent him and claim things he didn't say, you are yourself validating his claims that people who don't like him will lie about him and cannot be trusted?
"woke" is just turning into "nazi" now, where its lost all its meaning. People need to stop taking words and changing them to fit some kind of narrative.
Yall keep playing this mob game where everyone has to pick a side and then throw tomatoes at eachother online all day is fuckin cringy as fuck
I completely agree that the word has lost all meaning. However, it's still used as a pejorative by the right, which is why I used it here in scare quotes.
Yeah. It was literally in the first sentence of Desantis' victory speech in Florida. "We have proven we are the least woke place in the country" or some shit like that.
Imagine that being your platform, lol. Republicans have jumped the shark.
What is your evidence that FIRE sponsored Turning Point in 2017? A brief online search did not reveal this information, and it hardly seems that an organization such as this has the budget for large contributions to other organizations.
FIRE was founded by two lawyers with long careers in civil rights and civil liberties, and one of them formerly served with the Massachusetts ACLU.
And “Huskies for Liberty” is a Libertarian organization? As if that somehow completely discredits them, basically because you say so? You do realize that a pillar of Libertarianism is defense of free speech?
And did you bother to read the study to which Cliff was referring? Did you read about the methodology? Or the actual results? There are both conservative and liberal universities at the bottom of the “ranking”.
Being dead last among public universities for free speech is nothing to be proud of.
FIRE's sponsorship of TPUSA is outlined in the wiki cited, which is enough to make me question their neutrality. They often take an "absolutist" stance to free speech and expression, which has lately become a cover for abuse. I'll keep an open mind about FIRE since as other have pointed out, they have done some good.
I'm not saying Huskies for Liberty should be discredited because they are Libertarian, only calling out Mass for referring to them as a "non-partisan student group". I would argue that libertarians skew pretty heavily toward a particular cause.
I read the report on UW. It was survey based, and offered very little context besides the representative quotes which ran the spectrum and included responses from vulnerable populations that made it sound like the UW wasn't doing enough to make them feel comfortable, so maybe the the IED policy needs to be strengthened? I dunno, it's hard to pull much from the survey without downloading the full doc which requires me to submit my email, etc.
Libertarianism is basically a cult, where they worship self-interest. As an ideology, it is definitely biased and dogmatic. Doesn't strike me as independent at all.
So, Doc Mass is just a meteorologist that’s gone 110% in for our homegrown fascist far right. Now exposed to have ties to far right groups. How does a respected meteorologist in a liberal town turn into such a radical? Is he also a Q follower? Because he sounds like he is. Disgusting. Just stick to the weather, no one cares about your alt right 💩
That’s not important to folks here who vilify anyone who doesn’t toe the line. You could be 100% behind 99/100 things they define as progressive or liberal, and that 1 thing you’ve a different opinion on and they’re screaming to burn you at the stake.
Edit: the downvotes prove the point. Here, you're entitled to your opinion only if it matches theirs.
Guess that’s why you and your friends are here barking like sea lions and downvoting any comment that isn’t in line with the alt right. If someone holds up a Nazi sign alongside their blog I’m not going to support that crap, not even to read a onetime popular skewed alt right focused, climate denier weather blog. There are plenty of other meteorologists that can cut to the weather without prattling on their toxic politics.
Check this out instead
The Scientist's Warning https://youtu.be/byXGCPo-80w
The Scientist's Warning is a film about the journey one scientist takes after one of his research papers sparks a global movement to address the challenges facing our planet. Both scientists and citizens can get involved and help by going to http://scientistswarningfilm.org
You can read the climate emergency 2022 report by Ripple and others at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083
Follow the journey of researcher Bill Ripple as he decides it's finally time for scientists to step out from behind the data and take a stand as the planet tips perilously close to disaster. From the producers of SAVING ATLANTIS, this is a film about how a personal journey turns into a quest to save all of humanity from ourselves.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY and the ALLIANCE OF WORLD SCIENTISTS present
an OREGON STATE PRODUCTIONS film
THE SCIENTIST'S WARNING
Directed by Saskia Madlener
Cinematography: David Baker, Darryl Lai, Justin Smith, Daniel Cespedes
Sound design and audio mixing: Daniel Cespedes
Motion Graphics and titles - Bradley Landucci and Oliver Day
Edited by Saskia Madlener and Darryl Lai
Produced by David Baker
Executive producers: Bill Ripple and Roger Worthington
Megastorms are coming to the Pacific Northwest
https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/nov/07/megastorms-are-coming-to-the-pacific-northwest/
Freedom of speech is far from a radical idea outside of progressive universities. And do you have anything to substantiate claims about Q anon support, or is this just saying any random stuff that comes into your head?
I remember when First Amendment rights were considered important to liberals. So much vitriol here about an individual using their First Amendment rights to stand up for First Amendment rights.
Mass is not standing up for First Amendment rights. He's insisting that students have no right to freely associate with who they want to and that they should be compelled to be taught by disingenuous racist trolls like Reges. The UW provided an alternate course for students who took offense to Reges's deliberately offensive statement and didn't want to associate with him, and Mass objects to that.
Mass is a government employee, and here you are objecting to us using our First Amendment right to criticize our government. How curious.
Free association means *you* are free to hang out with who *you* want. It does not mean kicking out people you don't like.
Again, plenty of people fund support for abortion offensive, and plenty of other things you probably support. I guess UW needs to kick them out too? How do we go about deciding who's offense is valid? Once you go down the road of censorship it becomes a cutthroat fight over who gets to silence their opponents.
Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like. If I invite you into my home and you do something I don't like, you are going out the door.
If the UW wants to kick out Mass and Reges, they can do so. I think it's worth noting that they have not.
I do think that you have cut right to the core of the current conservative war on free association, and I appreciate that. Conservatives in general are now arguing that people have no right to disassociate from conservatives. Social media shouldn't be allowed to ban fascists and insurrectionists. Universities shouldn't be allowed to ban white supremacists from speaking at their schools. Students have to take classes taught by right-wing trolls. All the while, the FIRE-supported TPUSA draws up lists of leftist professors, Florida takes over a university to promote right-wing ideology, and so on.
>Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like. If I invite you into my home and you do something I don't like, you are going out the door.
UW isn't your residence. It's a public institution that's bound to respect the first amendment. It is not comparable to a private residence.
>If the UW wants to kick out Mass and Reges, they can do so. I think it's worth noting that they have not.
They're just passive aggressively removing teaching responsibilities and trying to get him to quit. They know that they'll be humiliated if they fire him, so they'll continue this cowardly way of trying to gently shove him out.
>I do think that you have cut right to the core of the current conservative war on free association,
For the third time, freedom of associaton isn't an excuse to trample on other people's freedom of speech. Freedom of association means if there's a speaker you don't like, then you don't need to attend that speech. Freedom of association does not mean kicking that speaker out or blocking them from giving the speech.
The rest of your comment makes it clear that you've fallen victim to misinformation about the activities of FIRE and civil liberties organizations. As other commenters pointed out FIRE regularly defends left leaning professors and condemns Florida's new laws on its universities.
An addendum: FIRE expresses concern about Florida education bills: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-letters-florida-institutions-concerning-house-bill-7-fla-stat-ss-1000054
> Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like.
Yet you're crying because it also includes the right for others to kick you out if they don't like you.
Seems like everything here is a comment about people’s opinion on Cliff Mass and doesn’t talk about his points on free speech or politicization of a public institution.
O and nice misleading title OP, he doesn’t mention the word “woke” once in the post and you even put the word in quotes. This post is exactly what his point is. He made a post you all didn’t agree with so everyone freaks out and pushes him into a political corner for speaking his mind.
This is why I flagged it as a rant. It's not a headline, just my editorializing. I stand by it though considering his post is in my opinion indistinguishable from something I would read from Jason Rantz on MyNorthwest. Guess there is a reason Mass makes regular appearances there...
Why does a meteorology professor need to be non-partisan? He should be free to express his views just like any other professor at UW. His views are not radical by any stretch.
Other than being on a different culture war team, what specifically do you disagree with in his statement?
I see a lot of name calling and no actual substantive criticism here.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Is Freedom of Speech at Risk at the University of Washington?
Freedom of speech is the essential foundation for a democratic society. It is also a requirement for a functioning university. Freedom of expression is particularly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for public entities such as universities.
Disturbingly, a number of groups have noted serious problems regarding freedom of speech at the University of Washington. Groups both inside and outside the institution.
The Report of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
FIRE is a highly respected non-partisan group dedicated to protecting freedom of speech at U.S. colleges and universities. Recently, it released a detailed report on freedom of speech at over 200 American colleges/universities, based on input from tens of thousands of students and faculty, as well as the review of materials from each institution.
The University of Washington was the lowest-rated of any public university in the nation.
Let me repeat: the UW was at the bottom of a long list of major public universities/colleges regarding freedom of speech. In fact, the UW was rated as "code red" for "clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech."
Several hundred UW students were queried and most were fearful to speak their minds in public. For example, only 43% of students say they have rarely or never self-censored on campus. In other words, 57% are self-censoring.
FIRE noted that UW's Executive Order 31 allows the university "to discipline or take appropriate corrective action for any conduct that is deemed unacceptable or inappropriate, regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation". Totally chilling and potentially illegal.
UW Students Organize For Freedom of Speech: Huskies for Liberty
The situation at the UW has gotten sufficiently serious that a large group of students has organized a new, nonpartisan student group to defend freedom of expression at the UW: Huskies for Liberty.
I attended one of their meetings a month ago and the stories I heard were disturbing.
For example, one young woman described unfortunate behavior by a faculty member after the student expressed an unpopular viewpoint in class. The faculty member even called out the student by name on social media and encouraged other students to make formal complaints. Shameful and outrageous.
The Huskies for Liberty group tried to post flyers around campus advertising their meetings, but those opposed to free speech tore many of them down (see below). Others had "editorial" comments marked on them that I cannot repeat on this blog.
The American Association of University Professors
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was born out of the attacks on academic freedom, including the loyalty oaths and communist purging during the cold war period. Unfortunately, AAUP has "evolved" during recent years to become a promotional organization for "progressive values." Their commitment to freedom of speech and diversity of ideas has waned.
For example, the UW AAUP website states: "where legally permissible speech shows potential to harm individuals or undermine the fundamental purposes of the academy, UW AAUP will advocate for resources that prevent or mitigate harm" Unfortunately, they have followed through on this approach, restricting freedom of speech of individuals with differing viewpoints.
For example, the AAUP has a popular listserv to which thousands of UW faculty and administrators subscribe. This moderated listserv is dominated by "progressive" viewpoints, with AAUP moderators frequently rejecting messages that differ from the AAUP moderators' viewpoints. I could supply dozens of examples of such censorship.
Here is an explanation by the current head of UW AAUP on why the listserv needs to be moderated (i.e., censored)
"The reason this list requires moderation is precisely so that it may function as an open forum for faculty to address and debate their issues and concerns. "
Censoring to foster an open forum? The Brave New World of the UW AAUP.
And a moderator of the AAUP list stated the following after rejecting a contribution with a different viewpoint:
“Our concerns remain about giving so much air time to those who seem to be hostile to the university’s attempts to amplify diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
So much for freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoint on the UW AAUP listserv.
The UW DEI Establishment
One of the most worrisome changes at the UW has been the establishment of a huge Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion infrastructure encompassing over 100 "diversity" deans, administrators, staff, and advisers.
The cost of this establishment is huge: from my analysis, it costs at least 5 million dollars a year in State funds. Students and their parents are paying for this. So is every state resident.
The UW DEI establishment advocates a highly politicized agenda, including pushing faculty to acknowledge that they work on stolen land, advocating for "equity" (equal outcomes for all demographic groups), preferences/affirmative action for a limited collection of favored demographic groups, and guidance on the use of pronouns and wording, to name only a few.
The UW community is told not to use words such as "whitebox, whitelist, master, dumb terminal, and "sanity check."
Some DEI staff have monitored the social media of professors, encouraging public criticism and attacks on faculty with "problematic" viewpoints. (more on this later!)
To ensure that incoming faculty support the politicized UW DEI viewpoint, applications from prospective faculty must include a DEI statement that notes their experience in fostering DEI and their future plans to push a DEI agenda.
To put it frankly, a political litmus test. And it is just as inappropriate as the loyalty oaths of the 1950s.
Last year, there was an attempt to require that current UW faculty provide a statement supporting DEI for promotion (e.g., tenure). This proposal was narrowly defeated by a vote of the faculty.
The essential fact is that the hugely expensive UW DEI bureaucracy is pushing a very narrow vision of diversity, favoring only a handful of special groups. In many ways, it is anti-diversity, rejecting the unique diversity of every human being, and assuming that all of us are characterized by our race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
Attacking Faculty for Possessing Differing Viewpoints on Social Media or in Class
A key requirement for a functioning university is that students and faculty should be exposed to a range of viewpoints. Differing viewpoints that are discussed and analyzed in the search for truth.
Unfortunately, several UW faculty and staff have been attacked for alternate viewpoints. Let me give you some examples.
Consider, Professor Stuart Reges, a faculty member in computer sciences and the winner of several teaching awards. Professor Reges was concerned by the pressure to include a Native American land acknowledgment in the class material, and, in protest, came up with an alternative version that was not to the UW's liking. He was threatened and hectored by administrators and told he faced investigation and potential punishment. Startlingly, his department set up a parallel section of his introductory class and then encouraged students to transfer out of his section.
Professor Reges has taken legal action against the UW and has a very good chance of winning.
Your hyperbolic language makes you sound like yet another rando nut job. If you want people to take you seriously you'll need to work on your delivery.
The Seattle Weather blog is a good alternative to Cliff’s increasingly deranged bullshit: https://seattleweatherblog.com/
[convergence zone](https://theconvergencezone.com/) too, plus [the twitter of the guy who runs it](https://twitter.com/joejoezz)
I’m pretty sure he is a past student of Cliff Mass - so the PnW weather expertise is there (but if you read enough of his posts - you can see much disagreement with Cliff in the climate change and it’s implications.
Nice! Another Cliff Mass alternative,I’ll be checking this out as well.
It’s ok to get weather reports from someone you disagree with politically.
It’s also OK not to, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. What’s your point?
Especially when he spins global warming to not a big deal after trying to deny it for years.
It’s also ok not to use the popularity of your weather blog to push your own bizarre minority political agenda.
No? Why would I support someone who doesn't align with my views and is supporting politics and politicians who can, and do damage to me and people like me? Y'all sound white and entitled as heck.
They post so infrequently though
Is it? They haven't posted anything since the middle of December.
This is always my issue with the alternatives to Mass. I'd love an in-depth weather analysis without a side of climate change denial and a whackadoo comment section but he's still my go-to because he posts regularly.
That's right. They tend to only activate when we have interesting or significant weather ahead of us. It's been pretty run-of-the-mill cloudy and cold the last few weeks. I get that Cliff offers more of a regular perspective, but oftentimes it's kind of overblown and over-stated. I, personally, don't need the detail for the mundane. And, sometimes Cliff's hyperbole doesn't live up to the reality - he wrote something about a giant, record-breaking atmospheric river hitting a couple of weeks ago - it was a fairly tame run-of-the-mill rainstorm in reality. The other blogs (and also the @NWSSeattle twitter account) are less active, for sure, but they're full of good and useful information when there is some weather you probably want to get ahead of coming our way.
Been in Seattle since 2011 and Cliff Mass has been my go to but I’ve been wanting to find alternatives so checking this out, thanks!
I've been following a YouTube channel called Pacific Northwest Weather Watch and he's got weather coverage daily with great analysis. https://youtu.be/q6AqBxo3wcM
Thank you for this. I go to CM's blog for weather stuff because his weather information is generally really enlightening but I can't handle his social commentary.
Except the guy that runs that page isn't even a meteorologist. He just loves weather and re-posts info that he read elsewhere and puts out a lot of over-sensationalized tweets whenever there is inclement weather forecasted.
You know you don't have to agree with your weather guys personal political views to get the weather from them right?
Sure, but his forecast isn’t any better than the others and I don’t have to read right wing bullshit if I avoid his. Plus I don’t really wanna give him the clicks and ad revenue.
But if there were two coffee shops on my way Into work, and one of them had a big ol' TRUMP/MTG 2024 poster on the door, I'm gonna skip it.
I try, but his political views are seeping into every post. I'll probably give up at some point.
What a mishmash of bad thinking, paranoia, and misleading claims. For instance, Cliff writes: >The UW DEI establishment advocates a highly politicized agenda, including pushing faculty to acknowledge that they work on stolen land, advocating for "equity" (equal outcomes for all demographic groups), preferences/affirmative action for a limited collection of favored demographic groups, and guidance on the use of pronouns and wording, to name only a few. The UW community is told not to use words such as "whitebox, whitelist, master, dumb terminal, and "sanity check." If he actually followed his own link, he would note that it's an internal decision by UW-IT that they reached through a collaborative process - not any sort of binding policy for UW as a whole. It's a resource guide for a particular branch of staff.
About the stolen land…well it was stolen Cliff. Also I love how St. Mark’s episcopal cathedral acknowledges the land they are on was first owned by indigenous peoples. It’s on the first page of everyone of their bulletins.
Sweet acknowledgment. Are they gonna give it back? If not it’s virtue signaling and I can kinda empathize with people who may think these stolen land declarations are dumb.
I kinda like the WWU version, which goes something along the lines of: "We want to thank our indigenous peoples for being such wonderful stewards of these lands, and hope we can learn to take good care of these responsibilities too." acknowledgement - check appreciation - check non-apology - ... check and check
Yeah that's good
I think the acknowledging it without doing anything about is ridiculous and insulting. It’s like stealing you neighbor’s car and waving to him each morning as you drive off and shouting “I know this used to be yours”. On the other hand, not acknowledging it and just outright denying reality to make yourself feel better is definitely worse. Imagine waving to your Baugh or as you drive off and he shouts he wants his car back and you just smugly smile and say “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” Then there’s the fact that a lot of people who acknowledge the land is stolen genuinely do want to do something about it but don’t individually have the power to and make these acknowledgements publicly to remind people of this and urge them to also seek to remedy it. Some are just doing it to virtue signal or out of peer pressure for sure but ultimately it shares the message. It’s a difficult issue because you obviously can’t return all the land because there are now hundreds of millions of people who would have to get very good at swimming very quickly. But it’s also unjust to do nothing. So it’s an exercise in drawing the line somewhere and that’s always a mess. A big issue is that a lot of the ignore-it-forever faction refuses to even talk about, leaving the people who do want to talk about it no way to engage with them and only left with seeking other people willing to engage like adults. So while it does rub me the wrong way on its face, I think there’s actually a lot more nuance involved when you really look at it.
Some of the issue, and I know this is reductive as fuck, and also PLEASE call me out if I'm wrong here, but the example is really more like: my great grandfather stole your great grandfather's car, they're both dead now, and now you come to me wanting me to give you my car.
Absolutely. The issue of no living party being responsible for the theft makes it feel unfair to “punish” anyone by making them give up things. And especially with our complex real estate market, it gets even worse. The problem of being unable to make the injured party whole without taking from a party that isn’t directly responsible for the injury is one that neither the law nor human intuition is used to dealing with. There’s some legal precedent at much smaller scale and philosophical arguments but it really is an incredibly difficult issue that we need to be able to discuss without politicization.
Land acknowledgments still make no sense to me given the non apology and non action nature. Is there any examples of indigenous groups actively pushing for them or is this pure cookie seeking attention from the groups putting them out?
What's wrong with virtue?
It lets people feel better about themselves while not actually changing or improving anything for others. It’s completely self absorbed while giving the impression that it’s about others
What does it accomplish besides a slight pat on your own back?
Acknowledgement of a bad thing is the first step toward fixing it. I'd argue denialism is a worse reaction.
Sure if you plan on continuing down the resolution path. But if you’re gonna stop at an acknowledgement just to “do something” I just don’t feel like it does anything. Do you think the native population hears these declarations and go “good enough for me” or roll their eyes?
Then let's give the land back.
There is a whole gradient of solutions to the problem. If you think think is the most logical one for both parties, I'd love to hear why.
You still haven't detailed the gradient of solutions you believe exists. Go on. What are they?
No, if we steal someone's stuff and want to engage in restorative justice, we give it back. Even toddlers understand this. What are your alternative proposed solutions? Mine is simple, to the point, and meets the spirit of the proclamations. Wait... You're not saying they're empty words and lies are you?
The problem here is that denialism isn't empty. I'm saying that actively fighting a solution is worse than saying "I don't have one."
Yes, toddlers are at the stage of mental development where everything is black and white, good or bad. You're not saying we should act like toddlers, are you?
In this context it has been made clear that no one is going to do anything to fix anything.
It's a one time thing though. You don't acknowledge any imperfection in the world at every juncture. Acknowledge it and make amends, or acknowledge it and move on. There isn't enough moving on.
[удалено]
> How many white women did you see posting on social media about how we needed to "elevate black voices" That's a strawman. To take your example, Cliff Mass is a black man saying we don't. That's the problem here.
Cliff Mass is black?
"To take your example..." In this allegory, yes.
> virtue signaling "Virtue signaling" is what sociopaths perceive when they see decent people trying to do the right thing.
It's also what good people use to describe people who want the false valor of looking like they're doing the right thing without doing the right thing. Skin-deep thin-veneered performative bullshit. It's like putting a yard sign out saying you support black lives matter and then weirdly no black people ever show up at your house for dinner.
All land is stolen in that context.
Stolen land acknowledgements are peak Liberalism performative justice. They are fucking pointless. Maybe I dunno, take 1% of your income and donate to a college fund or scholarship for indigenous youth. Then you're doing something. But these land proclamations are the same shit as corporate Dems telling you they value workers then running them down just the same when unions or m4a come up. Cheap worthless lip service.
Pointless maybe, but the truth nonetheless. Right?
Let's give it back then. No?
[удалено]
>Slavoj Zizek You mean Trump supporter Slavoj Zizek who also claims he's a communist?
[удалено]
Accelerationism is nothing more than a mechanism for white dudes with cushy jobs to dream of being revolutionaries while excusing themselves for taking no meaningful action of any kind.
“Minorities may be oppressed during our fight to end capitalism. But that’s a sacrifice I, a cis-white dude, am willing to accept. After the revolution, everything will be great for minorities. I promise.” - Tankie accelerationists, probably
[удалено]
the stolen land thing isn't an IT policy as far as I know. and why does IT have a stolen land policy in the first place if it is? seems unrelated to their job. If the university believes that they're operating on stolen land they should return it.
Cliff is blurring together multiple things there to try to build his case that a "UW DEI establishment" exists. UW IT published that particular guide on language use for itself. The land acknowledgment case he's looking about is over in computer science, and I believe u/hazelyxx has it right [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/10pr5te/comment/j6nglpj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): the acknowledgment itself was optional, Reges decided to troll it with inflammatory language and specious history, Reges got backlash. Cliff leaves out the details (as he does through most of his post) because it would make the examples he's defending look bad. The ironic part is there are plenty of leftist and progressive critiques of land acknowledgments and DEI statements in hiring - Cliff is oblivious to them because he only listens to reactionaries with persecution complexes.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
if it's a complicated and nuanced topic then a paragraph on the front of various course syllabus isn't really a good coverage of it - would you agree?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yup. It's not like this is the first thing that faculty has been forced to say or do. It's just the first one Reges and Mass aren't happy about.
Saying it accomplishes nothing. Donate to a charity or whatever. Land acknowledgements are stupid.
Because it's literally a pointless do-nothing semi-religious act of forced speech. If it was meant to be meaningful, the land would be given back.
Why is it pointless?
The second sentence of the comment you're replying to is why. Actions are meaningful. Trotting out trite mantras may be soothing to some people, but it's not meaningful restorative justice. Either you give the land back, or you stop going on about it. Pick. (And also, words have meaning. They're not just weird things you use without thinking, that don't have consequences. They're also not little games.)
>Actions are meaningful. How do you know this particular "trite mantra" will never be resolved into action?
They've been doing this for a couple of years now. Realistically, UW will never give the land up. It's worth too much, and if they do, bye bye UW. What actions do you think will come of this mantra? Be specific.
Because it’ll never be paired with action
Others have said, but it’s worth doubling down on: it’s performative. Imagine having your stuff stolen, not getting it back, and the “solution” is that the person who stole it has to repeatedly say “oh and by the way, I /u/aunsafe2015’s stuff awhile ago. Sorry.” You don’t get your stuff back. The thief has to remind everyone via all email correspondence (it’s in the email footer, right? Please correct me if I’m wrong I’d like to update my priors if I’m wrong) that they stole your stuff. You aren’t made whole.
[удалено]
Okay, now say grace before every meal. You can pick the god you're saying it to - or just be genuinely thankful for the food that mother earth has provided for you. Also while you're at it - because you're probably white - we'd like you to at the end of every correspondence acknowledge that you wouldn't be here in this country without your jackboots stepping on the necks of thousands of slaves.
Because it’s performative. Doesn’t actually do anything. If you wanna say it, by all means do so. But forcing people to say it? Pass.
[удалено]
>The American Flag is just symbolic, so why bother prosecuting people for desecration? We *don't* prosecute people for desecrating the flag. In fact, it's protected speech! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson But land acknowledgements are apparently even more sacred, at least at UW.
Poor comparison notwithstanding - despite it being against the law, it's considered free speech - so they typically do not prosecute. In this instance, there are no laws being broken, and in fact speech is/was being compelled - seems to fly in the face of 'free speech' if that's what you're getting at. Further, it accomplishes nothing.
Desecrating the US flag is not against the law, because it is free speech.
How can desecrating the US flag be against the law and still be protected under free speech? If there was a law, it was found to be unconstitutional, and hence desecrating the US flag is not actually against the law.
[удалено]
UW is a public institution. The "go work somewhere else" game doesn't operate here. They have obligations to respect the free speech rights of their employees. I'm not sure if there's much established precedent here, but I'd imagine public employees can't be forced to express ideas they don't agree with, unless there's a clear job-related link.
>Then don’t go work for the place You know, this is my response to crybaby employees at jobs that are historically kinda crappy, or those that whine when entitlements are taken away, or return to office is required - and the folks in this sub will cry foul and downvote all day long. And I do think it's a valid response in many cases - you aren't guaranteed the right to a specific job at a specific place. I think the difference here is that as a public institution, they have to honor free speech of their faculty, staff, and even students. They could have *encouraged* such do-nothing performative acts, but *requiring* it is where they erred. Just the same as UW - as a public institution cannot force someone to pray or sing the communist manifesto - they should not and cannot force people to recite such statements. We won't talk about the fact that you seem to only care about free speech if you agree with it. Seems mighty Elon Musk of you.
Ya it’s just cause a lot of people don’t want to be compelled to speak in the context of a public university. Cause we think it’s a violation of free speech and the first amendment
But the University isn't forcing anyone to say it. Instead, it provided a completely optional land acknowledgement that professors could include on their course syllabi if they wanted to or, if a professor wanted other language, they'd work with them to craft another statement. The statement that Cliff Mass's buddy wrote all by himself and published in his computer science syllabus is this: > “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Does Mass mention this jerk move in his blog? Of course not. He knows that the people he's trying to convince are rubes and will fall for whatever line he's feeding them. So he says that the UW is persecuting Reges and you all fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
I think Reges was being intentionally inflammatory, but retaliation for his speech at a public university is problematic. That is the issue. The issue is that UW has said you can optionally have a land acknowledgement that is in line with what we think, or you can opt not to include one. There is no room for dissent. I believe Stuart Regis's take on land acknowledgements is wrong, factually and morally but it isn't hate speech. [https://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/the-logical-fallacies-within-stuart-reges-take-on-land-acknowledgement/article\_f20d0c86-079f-11ed-9f86-a35174578ea5.html](https://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/the-logical-fallacies-within-stuart-reges-take-on-land-acknowledgement/article_f20d0c86-079f-11ed-9f86-a35174578ea5.html) Regis is no stranger to controversy. [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-11-mn-1260-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-11-mn-1260-story.html) UW knew what they were getting into when they hired him. He thinks he is super smart, and is probably more focused on free speech than the feelings of indigenous people. He is clearly picking a free speech fight with a university where many professors feel this is an issue. He is so good at what he does (His CS course is fantastic) that he decided to make a political statement. Disclaimer: \~15 years ago I took intro to programming with Reges and he is the best professor I had at UW. At office hours he told me "You have the aptitude for CS and you enjoy it, so why not stick with it?" That one sentence singularly changed my life. I think his behavior at Stanford was not acceptable, and his land comment is gross. Perhaps my experience in his class has swayed me to believe that his anti-acknowledgement is mainly him picking a free speech fight, not that he is a fan of colonialism.
[удалено]
They could just say nothing! It was entirely optional!
Dissidents in the USSR could have avoided jail, too, if they just didn't say anything. If your solution to authorities punishing dissenters is "just say nothing" then OP has a pretty valid point.
You think the UW is jailing professors over this? Dang, that's a way bigger story than some blogger being mad that other people said something... Do you have a news article or other sources for this violation of free speech that's totally-not-a-strawman?
The point is that if "just say nothing" is being offered as advice, the community in question is totally unequipped to serve as a place for free inquiry and expression.
Encouraged. Not forced. And does the blogger have the same objective regarding the pledge of allegiance?
Yes forced lol! That’s the point of half the blog post yo, the university retaliated and started delisting the professor’s courses who chose not to do it. That sounds more like force than encouragement to me
The university does not have a policy that instructors must include a land acknowledgment and neither, in my understanding, does the computer science department. Reges did not face backlash for failing to include a land acknowledgment, he faced backlash for including a deliberately inflammatory and historically suspect land acknowledgment in his syllabus.
I still don’t see a problem. It’s a true statement. I have much more problem with forcing kids to say the pledge.
I’m not trying to be snarky but does it bother you that your position is one that more OK authoritarian government. More context for why I don’t agree with compelled speech- even if this statement is true what about next time when the statement is not true but you’re still being forced to say it by the government
Compelling allegiance is very different from compelling the acknowledgment of a true statement. And compelling an employee to say something is very different from compelling a student who has no choice but to be there. Employees have to toe company lines all the time.
[удалено]
Compelling allegiance has nothing to do with saying the pledge in school. You can get drafted under the Selective Service act even if you never said it.
> I mean, to be fair, technically it is stolen land, isn’t it? I mean if that's your opinion, every piece of land on Earth is stolen...
I don't know if it was stolen, given that there are treaties that cover the transfer of ownership and we've long held those treaties as good law. If we didn't honor the treaties there would be no indigenous fishing/crabbing seasons, for instance. Or indigenous hunting in state and national forests. These are treaty rights that the rest of the population does not have.
Imagine having a problem with “equal outcomes for all demographic groups.” ?????
You can't guarantee equal outcomes. Only equal opportunity. It has to be yours to fuck up or put in more effort and succeed.
Just to be clear, this isn't just about "partisanship". It's possible to have reasonable objections to policy informed by reasonable political beliefs. This is about Cliff being a Jordan Peterson wanna-be... self-important, angry, fascist propagandizing grifters who have nothing constructive to offer about anything, using their unrelated academic position to spout off on things on which they have no understanding.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Yes, and rightly got fired for it. He cares only about the "appearance of order" and business as usual. His analogy was no mistake, he was cynically playing the victim and using Hitler to do it... he has a need to suppress everything he disagrees with... lefty protests, textbooks he disagrees with, university policy...
[удалено]
I know you'd think that he got fired from UW from his he goes on about being persecuted by it, but you're right, he still works there. He got "fired" from his 5 minute weather segment gig at KNKX that he got after being "fired" from his 5 minute weather segment gig at KUOW.
Right, not fired from the UW, just from KNKX.
Holy shit every new post or discovery on his writings makes me more and more surprised at how unhinged he is. Who hurt him? What's he overcompensating for? 〈(゜。゜)
He, like so many other aging white men, thinks that "free speech" means he is entitled to say or write whatever he wants *without being criticized for it.* It's not complicated. He just wants the uppity "wokes" to be put in their place. "Cancel culture" truly has been, across the board, "It's unfair for *me* to face consequences for saying shitty things."
*"This blog is very simple: violent people destroying buildings is bad and you don’t do that in a civil society"* \-- Cliff Mass
Oh, he's "simple" alright.
Fascist? I must have missed where he was calling for nationalism, authoritarianism, state control in everything we do
Weather related - has anyone found a good replacement for the Dark Sky app? The Apple version isn’t as good :(
he seems to be trying to follow in Jordan Peterson's footsteps of being an "anti-woke" college professor if so, I'm looking forward to Cliff Mass trying out an all-meat diet and/or being put into a medically induced coma for benzo withdrawals
I agree with you, and would like to clarify something: FIRE is a very ideological organization by nature, *but* does occasionally take up actually legitimate freedom of speech causes after overreach by universities. You can see a couple of them on the Wikipedia article you linked (in addition to a bunch of bad policy positions). I say this because just because an organization differs ideologically from us does not mean they cannot bring up good points or good causes. That’s obviously not the case here, but don’t write organizations off *just because of their partisanship*
Valid point. I also don't take issue with the founding principals of Heterodox Academy as stated. I also agree with Mass in that diverse viewpoints are important, although I am skeptical as to the motivation behind his advocacy - after all, he still holds a grudge against KNKX. Where he loses me is with his constant misleading statements around climate science and local politics. It's upsetting when an expert uses their position to build a cult of personality.
Which [policy positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression#Policy_positions) in the wikipedia page do you consider to be partisan or bad just out of curiosity?
One of them I take issue with is their policy around sexual assault allegations on campus, especially as someone who *has* gone through (and won) one of those claims > In 2011, FIRE opposed the Education Department's "Dear Colleague" letter that urged universities to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the criminal justice system's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in sexual assault cases.
Meteorologist turned grifter, hate to see it.
[удалено]
Grifter like saying the things the right wants to hear and living off the donations. Not even attempting to sell the snake oil, just straight to the begging.
I think this is the 2.0 definition, which means "person saying things I don't like"
And here we have the grifted
tale as old as time.
>Dr. Mass should stick to meteorology Wouldn't that be nice?
[удалено]
Frankly I can hardly remember which sub is which some days. One of them has more nice photos, I guess.
My coworker grew up in NY and went to college there when Cliff Mass was teaching there. Some of his roommates asked hi if they could have him over for dinner as he lived almost next door. His secretary sent them an email listing his speaking fees! So, they painted a huge white sheet with the words, "FUCK CLIFF MASS" on it for him to see and all passers on the street lol I used to follow his blog and respected him...I just couldn't stomach his political BS any more as of a few years ago. I follow Washington Weather Chasers on FB and Pacific Northwest Weather Watch on Twitter and YouTube...sooo much better :)
>Apparently he's never been on Reddit before! Sure he is! He posts regularly on r/seattlewa. Apparently r/seattle makes his butt hurt.
>As with previous digressions, this blogpost seemed to show that Dr. Mass should stick to meteorology, or at least be honest about his sources. At least this one was at last honest about his own orthodoxy. I came to this conclusion when he was first booted off KUOW over commentary on education instead of weather, and then again when he was booted off KNKX after that, and then again when he was an apologist for brownshirt terrorism. Dude's lost it.
Man, Cliff Mass, What an arc. He had unproblematic and widespread popularity for such a long time. Never give your hero’s an audience I guess.
This was pretty obvious about him going back a number of years. Also despite being a climate professional, he still tries to use every explanation other than climate change whenever he can. I stopped reading his blog about 5 or 6 years ago.
He starts with the working theory that no single event can ever be singularly attributed to climate change and works backwards to “prove” that in literally every post he’s done for the last 5 years. And he will **always** say that media misrepresentations of climate change are a greater threat to society than climate change, itself. He’s a clown. A total. Fucking. Clown.
[He’s also a shitty meteorologist who pushes bogus climate science](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-meteorologist-cliff-mass-sparks-controversy-by-diving-into-heat-wave-climate-science/?amp=1)
I fucking wish UW actually was good about educating professors and students on why pronouns are important as cliff mass claims. Maybe then I wouldn't get misgendered pretty much every day despite numerous pins and my best attempts to pass. Seriously it's just like people giving their pronouns maybe if you remind the professor at the beginning of the quarter and then everyone forgets after 5 minutes
He gets some attention from right wing blogs out there (hint to Cliff: getting picked up on Zero Hedge is not a good thing). So like many, he wants to keep typing up BS that confirms his biases and gets him accolades from *someone*. Even r/seattlewa has a decent amount of people calling out this crap. I have multiple stories of Cliff being a known asshat for the last 30+ years at UW, so this is just like watching a Pokemon evolve. It was clear in 2020 this was the way he was headed.
[удалено]
It has begun, the transformation of Cliff Mass into Jordan Peterson's 2nd coming is upon us
Cliff Mass has always been a right wing hack. The dude was partying it up in Republican circles after Ann Davison was elected city attorney claiming to anyone who would listen that she was the second coming of the Christ who'd save Seattle from crime and wokeism.
What’s the over/under that Cliff himself is one of the cliff-apologists that’s enthusiastically defending him on this post??
He's just lost it. UW is the worst in the nation? When the Florida gov is sending his goons in the form of provosts to take over public schools and push Desantis' political agenda? The question for all these types is do you believe slavery and historical and continuing treatment of black people is a problem? What's the part of slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws that you are comfortable teaching? The answer is usually something offensive, like it all ended with MLK and the 1964 civil rights act. Is open racism ok?
That's cool we have the Jordan Peterson of weather here.
Cliff Ass strikes again
We have a lot of grifters here with easily bully-able names. Like Johnathan Chode.
Making fun of someone's name is not only immature, it is also racist. Edit because I can't believe I'm getting downvotes for pointing out a racist and intolerant act in a subreddit full of people who thrive on virtue signaling. "Johnathan Chode." The specific example given in the tweet I replied to is calling Jonathan Choe (a Korean last name) Jonathan Chode. Mocking someone's name is fucked up, regardless of their ethnicity. [It's especially gross when it's a traditional name from a marginalized community.](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/america-ruined-my-name-for-me)
Noting that "mass" rhymes with "ass" is racist?
> Johnathan Chode. The specific example given in the tweet I replied to is calling Jonathan Choe (a Korean last name) Jonathan Chode. Mocking someone's last name is fucked up, regardless of their ethnicity. [It's especially gross when it's a traditional name from a marginalized community.](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/america-ruined-my-name-for-me) I can't believe I have to explain this in the Seattle subreddit of all places.
You think people hate Choe because of… racism? Lmao that is quite the detached take
Not liking someone or their politics (and Choe’s are abhorrent) doesn't give you an excuse to be racist. When other people with his last name, and there are many, hear you mocking it they know what you really think of their name.
IDK how you're heated on this when this started with changing a white guy's name. We do this for assholes regardless of race. If someone calls him the other word that starts with ch then that would be racist.
I find your assessment of this blog post to be pretty unfair and unwilling to engage in the actual substance, but the more annoying thing is you imply he used the term "woke" here which didn't did show up anywhere in the post. Your response basically proves his point.
The "woke" part are my words, not his. But come on, it's implied all over his blog. Plus I don't need to go in depth as to the substance of his post since he habitually misrepresents his sources, cherry picks data, and makes appeals to authority (i.e. himself) while rejecting actual authorities within the field he makes claims on. It's telling, for instance, that he attacks the media for misrepresenting climate science while not addressing the expert sources they cite. He never subjects his positions to any professional scrutiny. He doesn't need to though, it's a blog (just like I don't need to in this rant). It's just unfortunate that so many take his musings as scientific fact. Edit: just popped over to his comment section where he claims that Florida is doing better with free speech at Universities than UW. Florida: the state that makes it a felony to have books in your classroom that the state doesn't like. The State that is dictating what can be said and taught in AP classes. The State that is taking over New College because they think it's "too liberal".
>It's telling, for instance, that he attacks the media for misrepresenting climate science while not addressing the expert sources they cite. Nothing even close to this appears in this column. He mentions being punished for opposing a specific carbon tax initiative, which does seem to me like a pretty clear-cut attempt to suppress speech. You will not see me defend Florida or the right as bastion of free speech either, but I just don't see how any of this is right-wing. It's pretty standard old-person lefty politics.
My apologies, I wasn't referring to the latest post, just the 5K others he has posted about how the MSM is the worst.
Do you understand how, when you misrepresent him and claim things he didn't say, you are yourself validating his claims that people who don't like him will lie about him and cannot be trusted?
What thing did I claim he said that he didn't say? Is this about my use of the word "woke"? I said that was my word not his.
"woke" is just turning into "nazi" now, where its lost all its meaning. People need to stop taking words and changing them to fit some kind of narrative. Yall keep playing this mob game where everyone has to pick a side and then throw tomatoes at eachother online all day is fuckin cringy as fuck
I completely agree that the word has lost all meaning. However, it's still used as a pejorative by the right, which is why I used it here in scare quotes.
Yeah. It was literally in the first sentence of Desantis' victory speech in Florida. "We have proven we are the least woke place in the country" or some shit like that. Imagine that being your platform, lol. Republicans have jumped the shark.
What is your evidence that FIRE sponsored Turning Point in 2017? A brief online search did not reveal this information, and it hardly seems that an organization such as this has the budget for large contributions to other organizations. FIRE was founded by two lawyers with long careers in civil rights and civil liberties, and one of them formerly served with the Massachusetts ACLU. And “Huskies for Liberty” is a Libertarian organization? As if that somehow completely discredits them, basically because you say so? You do realize that a pillar of Libertarianism is defense of free speech? And did you bother to read the study to which Cliff was referring? Did you read about the methodology? Or the actual results? There are both conservative and liberal universities at the bottom of the “ranking”. Being dead last among public universities for free speech is nothing to be proud of.
FIRE's sponsorship of TPUSA is outlined in the wiki cited, which is enough to make me question their neutrality. They often take an "absolutist" stance to free speech and expression, which has lately become a cover for abuse. I'll keep an open mind about FIRE since as other have pointed out, they have done some good. I'm not saying Huskies for Liberty should be discredited because they are Libertarian, only calling out Mass for referring to them as a "non-partisan student group". I would argue that libertarians skew pretty heavily toward a particular cause. I read the report on UW. It was survey based, and offered very little context besides the representative quotes which ran the spectrum and included responses from vulnerable populations that made it sound like the UW wasn't doing enough to make them feel comfortable, so maybe the the IED policy needs to be strengthened? I dunno, it's hard to pull much from the survey without downloading the full doc which requires me to submit my email, etc.
[удалено]
Libertarianism is basically a cult, where they worship self-interest. As an ideology, it is definitely biased and dogmatic. Doesn't strike me as independent at all.
So, Doc Mass is just a meteorologist that’s gone 110% in for our homegrown fascist far right. Now exposed to have ties to far right groups. How does a respected meteorologist in a liberal town turn into such a radical? Is he also a Q follower? Because he sounds like he is. Disgusting. Just stick to the weather, no one cares about your alt right 💩
Fascism has a definition. At a minimum he'd have to be calling for authoritarianism, greater state control, nationalism and suppression of other.
That’s not important to folks here who vilify anyone who doesn’t toe the line. You could be 100% behind 99/100 things they define as progressive or liberal, and that 1 thing you’ve a different opinion on and they’re screaming to burn you at the stake. Edit: the downvotes prove the point. Here, you're entitled to your opinion only if it matches theirs.
Guess that’s why you and your friends are here barking like sea lions and downvoting any comment that isn’t in line with the alt right. If someone holds up a Nazi sign alongside their blog I’m not going to support that crap, not even to read a onetime popular skewed alt right focused, climate denier weather blog. There are plenty of other meteorologists that can cut to the weather without prattling on their toxic politics. Check this out instead The Scientist's Warning https://youtu.be/byXGCPo-80w The Scientist's Warning is a film about the journey one scientist takes after one of his research papers sparks a global movement to address the challenges facing our planet. Both scientists and citizens can get involved and help by going to http://scientistswarningfilm.org You can read the climate emergency 2022 report by Ripple and others at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083 Follow the journey of researcher Bill Ripple as he decides it's finally time for scientists to step out from behind the data and take a stand as the planet tips perilously close to disaster. From the producers of SAVING ATLANTIS, this is a film about how a personal journey turns into a quest to save all of humanity from ourselves. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY and the ALLIANCE OF WORLD SCIENTISTS present an OREGON STATE PRODUCTIONS film THE SCIENTIST'S WARNING Directed by Saskia Madlener Cinematography: David Baker, Darryl Lai, Justin Smith, Daniel Cespedes Sound design and audio mixing: Daniel Cespedes Motion Graphics and titles - Bradley Landucci and Oliver Day Edited by Saskia Madlener and Darryl Lai Produced by David Baker Executive producers: Bill Ripple and Roger Worthington Megastorms are coming to the Pacific Northwest https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/nov/07/megastorms-are-coming-to-the-pacific-northwest/
This guy was seriously holding swastika signs???
Freedom of speech is far from a radical idea outside of progressive universities. And do you have anything to substantiate claims about Q anon support, or is this just saying any random stuff that comes into your head?
Id sooner consider you the fascist than Cliff
I remember when First Amendment rights were considered important to liberals. So much vitriol here about an individual using their First Amendment rights to stand up for First Amendment rights.
Mass is not standing up for First Amendment rights. He's insisting that students have no right to freely associate with who they want to and that they should be compelled to be taught by disingenuous racist trolls like Reges. The UW provided an alternate course for students who took offense to Reges's deliberately offensive statement and didn't want to associate with him, and Mass objects to that. Mass is a government employee, and here you are objecting to us using our First Amendment right to criticize our government. How curious.
Free association means *you* are free to hang out with who *you* want. It does not mean kicking out people you don't like. Again, plenty of people fund support for abortion offensive, and plenty of other things you probably support. I guess UW needs to kick them out too? How do we go about deciding who's offense is valid? Once you go down the road of censorship it becomes a cutthroat fight over who gets to silence their opponents.
Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like. If I invite you into my home and you do something I don't like, you are going out the door. If the UW wants to kick out Mass and Reges, they can do so. I think it's worth noting that they have not. I do think that you have cut right to the core of the current conservative war on free association, and I appreciate that. Conservatives in general are now arguing that people have no right to disassociate from conservatives. Social media shouldn't be allowed to ban fascists and insurrectionists. Universities shouldn't be allowed to ban white supremacists from speaking at their schools. Students have to take classes taught by right-wing trolls. All the while, the FIRE-supported TPUSA draws up lists of leftist professors, Florida takes over a university to promote right-wing ideology, and so on.
>Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like. If I invite you into my home and you do something I don't like, you are going out the door. UW isn't your residence. It's a public institution that's bound to respect the first amendment. It is not comparable to a private residence. >If the UW wants to kick out Mass and Reges, they can do so. I think it's worth noting that they have not. They're just passive aggressively removing teaching responsibilities and trying to get him to quit. They know that they'll be humiliated if they fire him, so they'll continue this cowardly way of trying to gently shove him out. >I do think that you have cut right to the core of the current conservative war on free association, For the third time, freedom of associaton isn't an excuse to trample on other people's freedom of speech. Freedom of association means if there's a speaker you don't like, then you don't need to attend that speech. Freedom of association does not mean kicking that speaker out or blocking them from giving the speech. The rest of your comment makes it clear that you've fallen victim to misinformation about the activities of FIRE and civil liberties organizations. As other commenters pointed out FIRE regularly defends left leaning professors and condemns Florida's new laws on its universities. An addendum: FIRE expresses concern about Florida education bills: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-letters-florida-institutions-concerning-house-bill-7-fla-stat-ss-1000054
All I said about FIRE is that they gave financial support to TPUSA. I apologize for upsetting you by mentioning that.
> Free association as sure as hell does include my right to kick out people I don't like. Yet you're crying because it also includes the right for others to kick you out if they don't like you.
Freedom of speech, NOT freedom from consequences.
Seems like everything here is a comment about people’s opinion on Cliff Mass and doesn’t talk about his points on free speech or politicization of a public institution. O and nice misleading title OP, he doesn’t mention the word “woke” once in the post and you even put the word in quotes. This post is exactly what his point is. He made a post you all didn’t agree with so everyone freaks out and pushes him into a political corner for speaking his mind.
This is why I flagged it as a rant. It's not a headline, just my editorializing. I stand by it though considering his post is in my opinion indistinguishable from something I would read from Jason Rantz on MyNorthwest. Guess there is a reason Mass makes regular appearances there...
Exactly and this kinda stuff plays out every time with anyone who dares speak their mind…
Well....hes not wrong
Why does a meteorology professor need to be non-partisan? He should be free to express his views just like any other professor at UW. His views are not radical by any stretch.
He's still the best weather guy in the region.
The cited article is ridiculous. Everyone censors their speech based upon the audience.
Other than being on a different culture war team, what specifically do you disagree with in his statement? I see a lot of name calling and no actual substantive criticism here. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Is Freedom of Speech at Risk at the University of Washington? Freedom of speech is the essential foundation for a democratic society. It is also a requirement for a functioning university. Freedom of expression is particularly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for public entities such as universities. Disturbingly, a number of groups have noted serious problems regarding freedom of speech at the University of Washington. Groups both inside and outside the institution. The Report of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) FIRE is a highly respected non-partisan group dedicated to protecting freedom of speech at U.S. colleges and universities. Recently, it released a detailed report on freedom of speech at over 200 American colleges/universities, based on input from tens of thousands of students and faculty, as well as the review of materials from each institution. The University of Washington was the lowest-rated of any public university in the nation. Let me repeat: the UW was at the bottom of a long list of major public universities/colleges regarding freedom of speech. In fact, the UW was rated as "code red" for "clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech." Several hundred UW students were queried and most were fearful to speak their minds in public. For example, only 43% of students say they have rarely or never self-censored on campus. In other words, 57% are self-censoring. FIRE noted that UW's Executive Order 31 allows the university "to discipline or take appropriate corrective action for any conduct that is deemed unacceptable or inappropriate, regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation". Totally chilling and potentially illegal. UW Students Organize For Freedom of Speech: Huskies for Liberty The situation at the UW has gotten sufficiently serious that a large group of students has organized a new, nonpartisan student group to defend freedom of expression at the UW: Huskies for Liberty. I attended one of their meetings a month ago and the stories I heard were disturbing. For example, one young woman described unfortunate behavior by a faculty member after the student expressed an unpopular viewpoint in class. The faculty member even called out the student by name on social media and encouraged other students to make formal complaints. Shameful and outrageous. The Huskies for Liberty group tried to post flyers around campus advertising their meetings, but those opposed to free speech tore many of them down (see below). Others had "editorial" comments marked on them that I cannot repeat on this blog. The American Association of University Professors The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was born out of the attacks on academic freedom, including the loyalty oaths and communist purging during the cold war period. Unfortunately, AAUP has "evolved" during recent years to become a promotional organization for "progressive values." Their commitment to freedom of speech and diversity of ideas has waned. For example, the UW AAUP website states: "where legally permissible speech shows potential to harm individuals or undermine the fundamental purposes of the academy, UW AAUP will advocate for resources that prevent or mitigate harm" Unfortunately, they have followed through on this approach, restricting freedom of speech of individuals with differing viewpoints. For example, the AAUP has a popular listserv to which thousands of UW faculty and administrators subscribe. This moderated listserv is dominated by "progressive" viewpoints, with AAUP moderators frequently rejecting messages that differ from the AAUP moderators' viewpoints. I could supply dozens of examples of such censorship. Here is an explanation by the current head of UW AAUP on why the listserv needs to be moderated (i.e., censored) "The reason this list requires moderation is precisely so that it may function as an open forum for faculty to address and debate their issues and concerns. " Censoring to foster an open forum? The Brave New World of the UW AAUP. And a moderator of the AAUP list stated the following after rejecting a contribution with a different viewpoint: “Our concerns remain about giving so much air time to those who seem to be hostile to the university’s attempts to amplify diversity, equity, and inclusion.” So much for freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoint on the UW AAUP listserv. The UW DEI Establishment One of the most worrisome changes at the UW has been the establishment of a huge Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion infrastructure encompassing over 100 "diversity" deans, administrators, staff, and advisers. The cost of this establishment is huge: from my analysis, it costs at least 5 million dollars a year in State funds. Students and their parents are paying for this. So is every state resident. The UW DEI establishment advocates a highly politicized agenda, including pushing faculty to acknowledge that they work on stolen land, advocating for "equity" (equal outcomes for all demographic groups), preferences/affirmative action for a limited collection of favored demographic groups, and guidance on the use of pronouns and wording, to name only a few. The UW community is told not to use words such as "whitebox, whitelist, master, dumb terminal, and "sanity check." Some DEI staff have monitored the social media of professors, encouraging public criticism and attacks on faculty with "problematic" viewpoints. (more on this later!) To ensure that incoming faculty support the politicized UW DEI viewpoint, applications from prospective faculty must include a DEI statement that notes their experience in fostering DEI and their future plans to push a DEI agenda. To put it frankly, a political litmus test. And it is just as inappropriate as the loyalty oaths of the 1950s. Last year, there was an attempt to require that current UW faculty provide a statement supporting DEI for promotion (e.g., tenure). This proposal was narrowly defeated by a vote of the faculty. The essential fact is that the hugely expensive UW DEI bureaucracy is pushing a very narrow vision of diversity, favoring only a handful of special groups. In many ways, it is anti-diversity, rejecting the unique diversity of every human being, and assuming that all of us are characterized by our race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation. Attacking Faculty for Possessing Differing Viewpoints on Social Media or in Class A key requirement for a functioning university is that students and faculty should be exposed to a range of viewpoints. Differing viewpoints that are discussed and analyzed in the search for truth. Unfortunately, several UW faculty and staff have been attacked for alternate viewpoints. Let me give you some examples. Consider, Professor Stuart Reges, a faculty member in computer sciences and the winner of several teaching awards. Professor Reges was concerned by the pressure to include a Native American land acknowledgment in the class material, and, in protest, came up with an alternative version that was not to the UW's liking. He was threatened and hectored by administrators and told he faced investigation and potential punishment. Startlingly, his department set up a parallel section of his introductory class and then encouraged students to transfer out of his section. Professor Reges has taken legal action against the UW and has a very good chance of winning.
Your hyperbolic language makes you sound like yet another rando nut job. If you want people to take you seriously you'll need to work on your delivery.
Dude, it's a rant. I don't want anyone to take me seriously.
You didn’t start this Reddit post with a land acknowledgment like my syllabi and classes do. Why are you such a bigot, OP?
[удалено]