4 definitions by legalpwn
The name of a campus-wide campaign for the University of Illinois Urbana, Champaign that is grounded on the assumption that a university learning environment functions best when one accepts and respects others' view, identity, sexual orientation, race, etc.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
by legalpwn September 24, 2009
An imaginary balloon attached to all people who make racist, discriminatory, or stereotypical comments; or those who just mix up racism with personal qualms in order to garner political support and unleash the horde of sensationalist media pack-dogs on you, regardless of how true the claims might be or how racist the person who the comments or accusations are directed towards.
For every "bs", racist, stereotypical, or discriminatory comment such a person makes, the imaginary race balloon fills up yet a little more until your balloon is filled up with so much greed, false pride, deceit, immaturity, and selfishness that you are lifted away forevermore to new heights of stupidity, conceit, and self-hate.
Saying somebody has their balloon tied down means they are able to keep their racist or discriminatory comments to a minimum
For every "bs", racist, stereotypical, or discriminatory comment such a person makes, the imaginary race balloon fills up yet a little more until your balloon is filled up with so much greed, false pride, deceit, immaturity, and selfishness that you are lifted away forevermore to new heights of stupidity, conceit, and self-hate.
Saying somebody has their balloon tied down means they are able to keep their racist or discriminatory comments to a minimum
María: Johnny why do you always have to be such a racist
Johnny: yeah, well, your always stereotyping us American white guys.
Lisa: both of your race balloons are so filled up so much right now that your going to have be tied down!
Johnny: What about your race balloon, Lisa?
Lisa: Yeah, I know I´m racist but I tied myself down long ago.
Johnny: yeah, well, your always stereotyping us American white guys.
Lisa: both of your race balloons are so filled up so much right now that your going to have be tied down!
Johnny: What about your race balloon, Lisa?
Lisa: Yeah, I know I´m racist but I tied myself down long ago.
by legalpwn July 29, 2009
The use of a breathalyzers electronic results on a printed sheet as admissible evidence in a court of law for an OUI (operating under the influence) case, even though the defendant's counsel hasn't been allowed to determine whether or not the source code of the device is faulty.
Any breathalyzer used in court without testimony of the administering officer or without the papers from the manufacturer of the breathalyzer certifying the source code isn't broken or buggy and provides sound results is automatically deemed a failalyzer
Any breathalyzer used in court without testimony of the administering officer or without the papers from the manufacturer of the breathalyzer certifying the source code isn't broken or buggy and provides sound results is automatically deemed a failalyzer
Defendant and his Counsel meet before an OUI arraignment:
Counsel: Looks like we're not going to be able to take this to trial since a breathalyzers results are considered 100% accurate
Defendant: Yeah, but I only had one drink, and I wasn't even swerving very much. Are you sure those blood alcohol level results are accurate?
Counsel: Now that I think about it, the only guarantee I have is the manufacturers good will. I don't have any certifications as to the accuracy of the device or soundness of its source code and since we are in a court of a law, we must depend on legal documents; not simply the good will a business offers to its good customers.
Defendant: Yeah, we don't want a failalyzer in court
Counsel: We certainly don't
Counsel: Looks like we're not going to be able to take this to trial since a breathalyzers results are considered 100% accurate
Defendant: Yeah, but I only had one drink, and I wasn't even swerving very much. Are you sure those blood alcohol level results are accurate?
Counsel: Now that I think about it, the only guarantee I have is the manufacturers good will. I don't have any certifications as to the accuracy of the device or soundness of its source code and since we are in a court of a law, we must depend on legal documents; not simply the good will a business offers to its good customers.
Defendant: Yeah, we don't want a failalyzer in court
Counsel: We certainly don't
by legalpwn July 29, 2009
The act of pwning or semi-pwning a loved one, friend, or stranger followed exclusively by some sort of reaction of frustration manifesting itself verbally or silently.
In such situations, similar to a court of law, if it isn't a 100% verifiable that there was or wasn't pwnage, the initiator probably did pwn, just as if there is any doubt in a court the accused isn't guilty. Almost always, the purpose of a fluster pwn is to get a rise out of the one it is directed towards so that he or she who dictated the pwnage can then say "fluster pwn" in an irritating manner repeatedly.
In such situations, similar to a court of law, if it isn't a 100% verifiable that there was or wasn't pwnage, the initiator probably did pwn, just as if there is any doubt in a court the accused isn't guilty. Almost always, the purpose of a fluster pwn is to get a rise out of the one it is directed towards so that he or she who dictated the pwnage can then say "fluster pwn" in an irritating manner repeatedly.
Tommy began to tease Kendra about how poorly she played Halo 3.
Tommy (sarcastic): Wow, you are so good at Halo 3!!!
Kendra: Shut up!!!! You know I suck at this game. God, I just can't take you anymore!
Tommy: Fluster Pwn!!!!! (repeated slowly three times so he could gauge the reactions and adjust the response accordingly)
Tommy (sarcastic): Wow, you are so good at Halo 3!!!
Kendra: Shut up!!!! You know I suck at this game. God, I just can't take you anymore!
Tommy: Fluster Pwn!!!!! (repeated slowly three times so he could gauge the reactions and adjust the response accordingly)
by legalpwn January 7, 2010