Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Privacy The Internet News

Colleges Struggling With the Digital Bathroom Wall 262

Posted by Soulskill
from the for-a-good-time-use-google-stall-search dept.
theodp writes "Back in the day, anonymous character assassination was confined to permanent marker scrawl in bathroom stalls. But now, thanks to sites like the student-run CollegeACB.com (ACB=Anonymous Confession Board), which can get hundreds of thousands of hits on a good day, TIME reports that anonymous slander is going viral on campus. Even the most elite universities — normally the land of the politically correct — have been struggling with the problem of anonymous gossip sites and their very un-PC posts, which an Amherst dean likens to 'the worst of junior high.' If he thinks things are bad now, wait until the kids start getting creative with Google Sidewiki."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colleges Struggling With the Digital Bathroom Wall

Comments Filter:
  • by hyperion2010 (1587241) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:43AM (#30254460)

    Welcome to the internet, please enjoy your stay or GTFO promptly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smitty777 (1612557)

      It's funny how this particular thread is attracting all the Anonymous Cowards

    • When I read the title, I envisioned an actual whiteboard on the wall of a bathroom stall that allowed people to write on it. I figured the problems were people using real sharpies on it.
  • Herpes (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:43AM (#30254462)

    Soulskill has herpes!

  • So, it's... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Voulnet (1630793) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:46AM (#30254480)
    4chan for Harvard?
    • by smitty777 (1612557) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:47AM (#30254794) Journal

      Jerry Springer for the interwebs

    • Re:So, it's... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:55AM (#30254832)

      "4chan for Harvard?"

      Lulzworthy!
      I favor anything that "helps" the public view graduates of such schools with less respect.

      Since the internet rarely forgets, it will be a hoot when some of this comes back to bite the high and mighty as they rise up the political ladder.

      • Re:So, it's... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mcrbids (148650) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @03:22PM (#30256094) Journal

        Kids do stupid things. That's aout as newsworthy as the sun rising I the East. Within a few years, stupid comments you made way back when will be recognized as such.

        But while there is real slander going on, that's the extreme edge of a real sea-change going on. Sites like RateYourProfessor.com have fundamentally changed how studets and learning institutions interract! My wife, daughter, and two oldest sons are all attending CSUs and they all rely on RateYourProfessor HEAVILY to decide what classes to take. They find that it's quite accurate, too!

        This is something that strikes at the very heart of (IMHO) antiquated conncepts like tenure, which often works to cement boring, mediocre teachers into irrevokable positions in schools, draining the will of otherwise good students, and making education more expensive and less valuable to all others involved.

        This is a very good thing!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No. It's the Valley of the Squinting Windows. Technology has brought us right back to the ignorant, vindictive and intolerant society we started out from. The more things change....

  • futile struggle (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Odinlake (1057938) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:49AM (#30254488)
    Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China. Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ascari (1400977)
      You're ignoring the vandalism aspect: Anyone who scribbles on the digital bathroom wall deserves a digital swirly!
    • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:01PM (#30254866) Homepage Journal

      Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?

      That's a nice theory, but it's a really hard thing for people, especially immature people, to do.

      Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism, and often respond poorly. Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it. People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face. Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache. Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.

      Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident, but only a little. And there's a lot of variability, so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature, the least secure and the most vicious.

      It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response. Hopefully we'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors. That would be a good solution, and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be. Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.

      • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Odinlake (1057938) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:24PM (#30255004)

        Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.

        I don't particularly think it "raises the level", but I'm sure that it (the online-ness) makes things much more visible to adults - which is of course when they become horrible. (Mind, I for one think this is horrible in general but in particular cases I'm of course not horrified by things of which I'm unaware). Parents, guardians, schools, etc. must combat this problem exactly the same way as before - by taking time with their children, individually, not by spying or censoring public forums.

      • by Sheen (1180801) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:32PM (#30255050)
        You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?
        • Sheen, have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
        • by baKanale (830108)
          If only we could mod the GP "-1 Creepy".
        • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Informative)

          by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday November 28, 2009 @08:29PM (#30257750) Homepage Journal

          You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?

          I watch my 14 year-old daughter's interactions with her friends.

          • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday November 29, 2009 @09:59AM (#30261042) Journal
            It's a little while since I was 14, but I remember the girls of my age being incredibly viscous, with hair-pulling and attacking with sharp teeth and nails being a common way of interacting within the group. If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison. Of course, when they were near any of their parents, they were always sweet, charming and polite. As the other poster said: putting things online just makes them more visible to adults.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by swillden (191260)

              If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison

              You've got that backwards, because you don't understand teenage girls. Pulled hair and a few scratches they can bounce back from. Words produce far more lasting damage, for multiple reasons.

              One of the biggest is that on Facebook these fights happen in public. It's not just a handful of people nearby that hear the hurtful comments and maybe a little gossip that gets passed around fifth-hand. The entire school reads it, nearly in real-time. SMS fights aren't nearly as bad.

              Relative anonymity also faci

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.

        I sure hope so! Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks". Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards. A greater separation (in terms of control of the direction of energy of society) will develop between those who face life boldly and those who whimper at a cross glance, and greater advancements wil

      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.

        Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.

        I'm 23.

        These newfangled digital bitches don't hold a candle to their ancestors. Excuse the gender-specific term, but they just don't have the balls. I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver's side window of a parked car. A fucking window!

        I'll bet most of these girls can't throw a punch

        • by Smauler (915644)

          Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.

          We all know what the teachers will get up to, but this story was about the girls I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ClosedSource (238333)

      "Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China."

      Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.

      • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shark (78448) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @02:09PM (#30255626)

        Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.

        The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important. Once you start making them relative to each other, you enter the realm of what is often called 'the tyranny of the majority' whereas if the majority decides that your right is unimportant, or unacceptable, it vanishes.

        This being said, libel is illegal and if you are a victim of it, you are well within your right to take your case to court. I think society would work better if we maintained that libelous statements must be false though.

        • Re:futile struggle (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ClosedSource (238333) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @02:58PM (#30255930)

          I understand the slippery slope of these issues, but at the same time it's silly to pretend there aren't differences of degree even if as a practical matter we have to treat them the same in law.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by phiwum (319633)

          The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important.

          T'ain't what the courts say. Different kinds of speech have different amounts of protection. Political speech is most protected and commercial speech among the least protected.

    • by tukang (1209392)

      What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?

      Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me

    • Does this mean you'd have no problem if someone was writing anonymously about you being a child molester, and a potential employer found that when googling you, and that was the deciding factor in you not getting the job?

      We aren't talking about free speech here. We are talking about slander/libel. Just because the internet makes it easier doesn't mean we should just give up and say "what the hell--slander and libel are OK now".

  • PC, huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FatSean (18753)

    Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness. Those who make sad and angry noises about PC are just upset that their version of PC is out of style. Perhaps they were Emily Post fans.

    We now frown on slurs and other degrading language where once that was celebrated. We now allow discussions of topics in public that were once forced by the Olde PC to be kept private to the determent of those who needed the topics aired.

    When someone complains about 'PC' they're just complaining that THEIR versio

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DJRumpy (1345787) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:55AM (#30254522)

      Or perhaps people still don't like other people behaving like asses? We were raised (well most of us) to treat each other with at least civility. It grates when you read or see something like that. That's the whole idea of peer pressure.

      I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by daveime (1253762)

        And who is going to determine that a post is trivial / unimportant ?

        The fact that Jenkins expresses a sexual preference for the dead is perhaps a valid and important fact for other people to be made aware of, especially if he is currently studying for a Bachelor of Arts in Embalming.

        And really, kids start calling each other names in the kindergarten playground. Why does the fact it is posted on the internet make it any more important. Just because it's exposed to perhaps a wider audience doesn't mean discer

        • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Bluesman (104513) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:24PM (#30254998) Homepage

          Hey, I'm an oversensitive pussy, and I find your post extremely offensive and wrong.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by plover (150551) *

          I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.

          And who is going to determine that a post is trivial / unimportant ?

          The author. If you're not anonymous, you're less likely to post trivial crap like "Davee is teh gaye!!11!!" It becomes self censorship, mostly because you want to keep posting, and don't want to get banned.

          The flip side is that anonymous lets people post useful stuff that they shouldn't for other reasons. While you may (or may not) find the position distasteful, our form of government is composed of everybody, including drunks, racists, gays, junkies, and whoever else. Today it would be political suicid

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            (Today's "look it up" word is: foment [wiktionary.org])

            There are other important reasons for anonymous speech: I am more than willing to stand behind what I'm writing here, but I want you to answer me here, based on my arguments in the current context, instead of taking my arguments out of context and using them to discredit me that way. I also do not want to be reduced to my current point of view. Published information is archived everywhere, but the mode of communication on message boards is more like oral conversation. I

          • "Davee is teh gaye!!11!!"

            It's OK. Dave and his friends don't speak jive .. ah I mean leet.

          • by daveime (1253762)

            Yes, there are pros and cons for both "named" and anonymous posts.

            But I'd understood from the OP that he'd force people to either post "named" or not at all, which simply serves to silence the voices of all those who cannot risk posting "named" e.g. Iranians, Burmese, Chinese, in fact citizens of any country that are under a repressive regime.

            I think that alone is enough justification to allow anonymous, and if it also means some people will post derogatory slurs against their college mates, then I think we

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @10:59AM (#30254546)

      The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives). Politeness often also has these attributes, but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one didn't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge. PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking, which is unacceptable. So fuck you.

      • by Omestes (471991)

        The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives).

        I've never interpreted it this way; i always took it as "something correct in the political sense", using the broader definition of "political".

    • No you are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:11AM (#30254604)

      Complaints about PC are generally not about any version of right or wrong. They are complaints about being required to use, or avoid, language, which it is claimed might offend someone.

      I don't care what language you use and do not want to restrict your use of any particular words. You might care what language I use and seek to impose restrictions. Those two approaches are not equivalents and PC falls into the latter.

      Just because two people disagree, it does not mean that both views are equal in some way.

      • by Lehk228 (705449)
        you mean language like saying "happy holidays" then being accused of personally crucifying the baby jesus because you didn't say "merry christmas"?

        the biggest PC whiners these days are the right wing fundies.
        • by Shark (78448)

          And by promoting the false left/right paradigm, you give them even more power.

          It's like the pro/anti gay thing... You have the gay bashers on one side and the whining sissies on the other side, each building up more steam and clout in their respective clan as they face eachother. The result? An endless debate instead of the ideal solution where nobody actually gives a damn if someone is gay or not. Why? Because being gay, or black, or Jewish or a woman doesn't give you any rights. Being a human gives

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoYob (1630681) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:16AM (#30254628)
      That depends on what you consider to be PC or un-PC.

      Bill Cosby said some things about his community a while ago that was very un-PC, but he felt it needed to be said. White people have said the same things before (as well as less prominent Blacks) but were then called "racist" or "bigots", then ignored and in the meantime, the problems in the community continued. Of course, all of those problems were always blamed on others and never on the community - ex. not getting education because it was a "white" thing and then being angry and pissed when the only jobs they can get are janitors which then lead to more rancor and beliefs about being oppressed and what not.

      And it's not only the African American community it's across all racial and religious lines . Although, it's just that it's PC to say anything about white males.

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:20AM (#30254640)

      Political correctness is nothing but a bunch of random rules of communication setup as a system of traps for people who dare speak their mind. It doesn't make any sense except to derail communication from its intended purpose.

      When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JorDan Clock (664877)
        I am very interested in seeing an example of an American calling a European national 'African American.' I am not doubting you or anything, I'd just like an example to show others.
        • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:20PM (#30254970)

          I am very interested in seeing an example of an American calling a European national 'African American.' I am not doubting you or anything, I'd just like an example to show others.

          Haha, and sorry nothing citeable here because I'm going to post anonymously for this but I have a black African friend who punched an American who referred to him as "African American" [in UK btw]. What a day that was, sigh..

        • I've heard of the issue. If you were truly interested you would have gone to Google. Another one is whites born and raised in South Africa wondering if they should check the "African American" box on forms here in the States. Blacks immigrating from Haiti or elsewhere in the Caribbean run into a similar puzzler.

        • The European version of Fallout 3, specifically the one released in the UK and Ireland, had three starting options for race in character customisation

          1) Caucasian
          2) Asian
          3) African American

          The minute we started the game, everybody had a good laugh about typical American ignorance. None of us were black, but I'm sure anyone in the UK who was would probably be fairly irritated by that designation. It didn't even stop there. In the UK, "Asian" refers predominantly to people south asian descent, the subcontinen

          • by russotto (537200)

            The minute we started the game, everybody had a good laugh about typical American ignorance.

            Which only proves your own provincialism, because it wasn't ignorance at all. It was political correctness. The game makers deliberately used the term "African American" because all the alternatives are seen as offensive by some people. It might not even be incorrect; is the character supposed to be American?

            In the UK, "Asian" refers predominantly to people south asian descent, the subcontinent. "East Asian" ref

            • by Jesus_666 (702802)
              It mainly proves how PC can muddle language to the point where it doesn't fulfill its intended purpose. FO3 can justify the term - the character is from America - but what if other games that aren't as clear about the character being American use the term "African American" to refer to someone of dark skin? Maybe someone who's never been to the States?

              The whole term only makes sense for a subset of a subset of all black people. What about someone of Aboriginal descent who lives in Europe and comes to the
        • If you're interested in an example that you can pass out as information then here is a very well documented one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1 [go.com]

          If you're looking for an argument you'll have to go elsewhere.

        • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Informative)

          by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @02:11PM (#30255634)

          I don't have a primary source for this because it was supposedly on TV, but apparently there was a conversation between an American reporter and black British athlete Kriss Akabusi that went something like this:

          "So, Kriss, what does this mean to you as an African-American?"

          "I'm not American, I'm British"

          "Yes, but as a British African-American ..."

          "I'm not African. I'm not American. I'm British."

      • by symbolic (11752)

        I disagree. While I think some political correctness is over the top, it seems that its intent is to prevent people who don't think, or who refuse to think, from hijacking communication with simple stereotypes. Simply relating PC to a means of prohibition is failing to acknowledge that what people say is largely dependent on their level of awareness, and can range anywhere from the truly insightful, to the frightfully ignorant.

      • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Informative)

        by selven (1556643) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:26PM (#30255010)

        Political correctness is just an impossible game of cat-and-mouse using weird terms until the terms become popular and you have to use newer ones, making reading older texts on subjects like psychological disabilities impossible. When you get streaks of renaming like mongolism -> Down syndrome -> trisomy 21 and stupid -> mentally retarded -> mentally challenged -> differently abled (or whatever the current one is) communicating becomes a nightmare.

      • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Arthur Grumbine (1086397) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @01:27PM (#30255364) Journal

        When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.

        Exemplified by the brilliant satire of Sacha Baron Cohen, in Brüno:
        Brüno: There's a lot of African Americans in Africa!
        African-American Lady: No! There's a lot of Africans in Africa!
        Brüno: That's racist!

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        Yeah, or when you've got a real African American who happens to be white getting expelled from his school, and his life effectively ruined.

        I'm sorry, but how other than "African American" are you supposed to identify an American citizen who immigrated from South Africa? If you say a white man can not claim that mantle when a black man can, and it applies, then you are being racist in the name of political correctness (which is, it seems, half the purpose of 'political correctness' in the first place - secre

      • by WCguru42 (1268530)

        When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.

        I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans. I told them that the game wasn't racist, but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american. The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa.

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wildclaw (15718) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:36AM (#30254740)

      Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness

      Political Correctness is not polite. In fact, it is the opposite. PC speak at its core is about deception, and as such is one of the greatest forms of insult to any listener that can read between the lines.

    • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Vahokif (1292866) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:38AM (#30254754)
      The difference is that politeness is a style that evolved naturally. Political correctness is an invented newspeak.
    • Uh, no, not really (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:29PM (#30255032)

      Have you been encased in a cement bunker for 20 years? "PC" is not just about avoiding overt insults or, say, the fact that we have condom ads on television now with a guy getting his junk buffed in a wind tunnel. When recent polls in the polls in the UK indicate that 80% of the population is tired of political correctness, you have a real problem, not a generation gap.

      When people complain about PC, they mean the sort that causes valid or even scientific discussion from even taking place because some hypersensitive miseryshit somewhere might be offended.

      It's the sort of PC that chastises a kid in a Halloween pirate costume for wearing an eye patch because it's offensive to the disabled. Oops, I mean differently-abled! Sorry! Don't sue me for causing emotional distress, please! It's curious they never seem to ask an actual other-abled person. No, wait, "other" sounds exclusionary doesn't it? Argh! The low seas of PC be treacherous, me mateys!

      Political correctness also seems to be covering hypersensitivity to safety, so you have it applied to cases where trapeze artists are required to wear hard hats or the Army is told to make their training courses safer to the point of, well, pointlessness. That seems odd to me, but the street finds its own uses for words, much like hacker is used in place of cracker by the general population. Language evolves- deal with it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gblues (90260)

        As a fairly recent graduate of Army Basic Combat Training, there is nothing pointless about making training courses safer. The training schedule is very very tightly packed--there is virtually no room for a soldier-in-training to get injured and keep up with his classmates. At best, the soldier will be restarted with a new unit; at worst, the soldier might get sent home for convalescence leave (paid), or if the injury is serious enough it might require separation. So if training can be made safer, that mean

      • by baKanale (830108)
        And when you add the euphemism treadmill [wikipedia.org] you get a giant mess. First you call people who can't walk "lame", but that's insulting, so you say "crippled". But eventually that is labeled "incorrect", so you switch to "handicapped", then "disabled", then "physically challenged", then "differently abled"! What's next? "Specially embodied"? "Uniquely limbed"?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357) *

      "Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness."

      Horse Shit.

      Polite society has observed pretty much the same conventions for centuries now. Politeness hasn't changed much at all. Change is slow, and very gradual.

      Politically correct is a fucking bludgeon used mostly by the left to beat down anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

      Need an example? A polite person won't call a queer a queer - he will avoid the subject, or use less inflammatory terms. But, a polite person will STILL vote hi

      • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ikarous (1230832) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @03:24PM (#30256114)

        "Politically correct" bullshit makes it a crime for anyone to speak out against queer sumbitches who want to get married, and take over the churches, schools, military, or whatever else offends them. Opposition to homosexuality becomes a "hate crime".

        Don't ever confuse "polite" and "politically correct".

        Polite pretends that the queer isn't a cocksucker. Politically correct demands approval of cocksuckers.

        As an incorrigible cocksucking queer sumbitch myself, I would like to take this opportunity to offer to you my sincerest gratitude for your honesty. My partner and I have been denied housing by "polite" people here in Texas who are always be forced to go far out of their way to find some valid excuse to support their obviously bogus decision. Everyone in the room knows the truth, but for some reason, the mores of politeness demand that no one verbally acknowledge it.

        Fuck that. It's much better when people just come out and say what they believe. I'm old enough and wise enough now that I truly don't give a shit what people think of me, but they should at least have the courage not to hide their feelings behind a veneer of "politeness." I can respect them for that.

        • Re:PC, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Runaway1956 (1322357) * on Saturday November 28, 2009 @03:32PM (#30256184) Homepage Journal

          I can understand that. Maybe someone will mod you up. ;^)

          I've been denied service a few times in my life. Lame excuses like, "We just ran out of beer" is bullshit. If you were really out of beer, all the rest of the customers would have been on their way OUT as I walked IN. Just tell me that you don't want no sailors hanging around your bar, no white people hanging around your Bar-B-Que, or that you don't like Americans in general.

          There's a lot to be said for honesty.

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Oh, I disagree, emphatically. Political correctness is much, much more (or less, in some cases) than politeness.

      It is politically incorrect to hold a door for a woman. Yet, an orgy or swinging, and its general acceptance (which probably couldn't be considered 'polite') is quite politically correct. It is politically incorrect to even simply have ideas which are unpopular (about demographics, statistics, climate change, economics, etc.). It is politically incorrect to not hold sympathy for the oppressed in s

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        Sorry to reply to myself here, but...

        Additionally, PC behavior extends well beyond politeness to the point of ignoring reality - recasting the facts in a

        Let's pick racism as a "for example". So-called "race baiters" - Al Sharpton, Louis Farakan, and their ilk - lie outright, cast blame, and try to gain favor. It's "politically correct" to respect the black man, and to give him what he wants. But are the facts in support of the claims of these men, or for that matter, beneficial (in the long term) to the act

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is hardly a new problem. Check out the old "Consumers Guide to MIT Men", a 1970's rating book for MIT men in bed designed to mock the rating guides for easy lays published internally by the fraternities of the day. Sadly, the book failed to mention that the authors were sleeping with drunk boys from the "Strat's Rat" bar at MIT, where the high male/female ratio and cheap liquor contributed to their research.

    They tried to censor that, too. And make no mistake: the great desire of university publicity de

  • by andi75 (84413) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:25AM (#30254670) Homepage

    I'm so going to whore karma with this obligatory Penny-Arcade reference [penny-arcade.com].

    Mod redundant at will.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by aj50 (789101)

      and then Halo 2 came out and showed how much worse it is when everyone has voice chat.

  • by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:36AM (#30254732) Journal

    Freedom of speech wears-out only if you don’t use it.

    — Maurice Maréchal, founder of the satirical french weekly “Le Canard Enchaîné [wikipedia.org]“.

  • by noidentity (188756) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @11:38AM (#30254752)
    What's the real reason for the schools' objection to it? I always thought it was because it destroyed school property. If it's virtual, then as a student you have to seek it out to see it, rather than seeing it in the bathroom stalls whether you like it or not. Sounds like it was really about control. They want control over what students say to each other at all times. Heaven forbid students organize in various ways without permission.
  • on anything that is driven by user content. Unmoderated content is simply useless and the more inter-connected that user accounts become, the better. A cross-site karma system would be excellent, eventually anyone who doesn't want to have to read shit from every moron with a keyboard won't have to. If karma could be propagated across news-sites, IMDB, /., etc. and linked into everyone's Facebook, we'd be better off. I just don't read unmoderated, anonymous content; it's worthless. There will always be fuckw
  • Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by handy_vandal (606174) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @12:08PM (#30254918) Homepage Journal

    It's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.

    If we allow anonymity, people will
    (a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;
    (b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;

    If we prohibit anonymity, people will
    (a) Use it for good: standing by their assertions;
    (b) Use it for evil: track every word you say, stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.

    There is no right answer. There are only choices between problems.

  • Untouchable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyn1c77 (928549) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @01:51PM (#30255526)

    Owner Peter Frank, a sophomore at Wesleyan University... runs ACB out of his dorm room. The 19-year-old English major... "I'm untouchable," he says.

    You don't sound untouchable Pete, you just sound stupid. Especially after letting time.com publish your full name, picture, the city you live in, AND the school you attend. I am thinking that the next year is going to be very educational for you once your site slanders a couple of people to the point that they lose control and decide to take a trip to Middletown with your picture in hand.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fnord666 (889225)

      Owner Peter Frank, a sophomore at Wesleyan University... runs ACB out of his dorm room. The 19-year-old English major... "I'm untouchable," he says.

      You don't sound untouchable Pete, you just sound stupid. Especially after letting time.com publish your full name, picture, the city you live in, AND the school you attend. I am thinking that the next year is going to be very educational for you once your site slanders a couple of people to the point that they lose control and decide to take a trip to Middletow

  • Did anyone else read the title and think someone put a big electronic wall in the bathroom that can be written on like a tablet pc?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RoboRay (735839)

      If every stall had a board tied to the board in every other stall for collaborative graffiti, that would be pretty neat.

  • by Vellmont (569020) on Saturday November 28, 2009 @02:17PM (#30255682)

    So the supposed big gossip site Juicy Campus folded in February after existing for a whole year and a half. CollegeACB is some site run by an English Major out of his dorm room. If you actually GO to the site, you'll see a lot of old, outdated posts mostly people asking for gossip and very few actually providing gossip. So this is supposed to be the big problem Colleges are worried about?

    This is just another lazy journalist creating a story out of nothing.

  • Libby Hoeler agrees.

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.

Working...