and they thought Goddard was crazy.

Going to WPI I always heard the story how all the other professors would shun him even in the lunchroom.

When his recognition switched course they supposedly all sat with him at lunch and he got up and went to another table.

But he has a building or two named after him.

Your video, After Hours: Why Professor X is really the Villain in X-Men, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm from Manitoba myself and the juxtaposition of the video showing great restraint by the officer with this quote from the article is my main reason for posting:
Leah Gazan, an Indigenous activist and University of Winnipeg professor, said the officer could've used less forceful tactics to restrain Kokopenace

I don't want to downplay the obstacles faced in the US by African Americans, but I feel really strongly that race relations in Canada between Aboriginals and the country is in a MUCH worse place.

In Canada the past and history between aboriginals and Canada still has been ignored more often than it has been met head on. For both good and ill reasons over our history, we've had a two tiered system of laws that treat separately with you based on whether you are native or not. Originally this was oppressive of native communities, but now it's often the other way around:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-must-weigh-cultural-factors-in-native-sentencing-court-rules/article535585/

The greater problem to try and solve is Canada's native reserve system. Native people living on reserves are more often than not growing up in 3rd world conditions. The worst part is, proposing changes to that system is itself 'racist' against aboriginals. Our reserve system is systematically destroying generations of people based upon their race, and nobody seems to be able to fix the thing .

"Letting them know that you're about to have a lecture on very sensitive material is totally fine. I mean, I've done that."

Then congrats, you're OK with trigger warnings.

And like most instances where people panic about them, Oxford hasn't made any sort of official policy. Professors are able to do so at will or ignore the use of the warnings all together. Much like they have been doing for years and years.

Curious how victims of sexual assault that often develop PTSD for periods following are somehow "coddled censors", yet the same doesn't apply for any sort of accommodation for other mental or physical ailments. We don't see people freaking out about warnings of flashing lights in various media for the epileptic, we don't mock the soldier suffering from PTSD who asks for accommodations, and we don't mock the migraine sufferers who avoid certain situations, food, etc to prevent attacks.

But somehow, the physical effects triggered by certain stimuli of a lingering sexual assault is different. Better alert the news media, the PC police rape survivors are here to ruin everything with their asks for "Hey, maybe consider my physical issues?"

Why didn't they stuff Professor Ueno's body and put it in a museum?

John Cleese is hardly new to this. When he and the python troop made Life of Brian, more than 35 years ago, church leaders tried hard , and in many locations succeeded in getting it banned.

Back then he did the circuits talking with religious leaders defending that he had the right to still say something even if they disagreed with it. It's worth noting, much of his support came from within Academia were young students were eager to push back against the religious leaders controlling what people should and shouldn't say in a film.

Fast forward 35 years to today, and now a new batch of young students from Academia are making the exact same fight against what should and should not be said. Professors and administrators who don't get on board are getting fired. Students who don't get on board are being expelled.

Where the religious leaders used to try and shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects, today it is SJWs trying to shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects.

Cleese is at least being even handed with calling actions out on both ends of spectrum regardless were he sits on it. It's tragic that the notion of critical thought and argument is done better by comedians than supposed leaders of thought both 35 years ago and still today.

Agreed, and a very important point.

However what I see as worst of all here is so many other students standing around, and none of them are intervening and correcting her.. so I wonder, do they think she's right or that she has a valid point, or maybe just don't realise that the professor is limited in how he interacts with this increasingly-emotional scenario. Whereas she's free to slip the bonds of reality.

Why did she take her backpack off?
If she was male, anyone standing in front would interpret it as likely being preparation for physical interaction (violence)

Makes incorrect claims, gets abusively emotional during discourse and seems to have some sort of partial-interest in either violence or at least to be threatening, these are all good reasons not to take her points seriously.

It wasnt al-Ghazalis fault that muslim society adopted his idea that math is evil and made it doctrine. He was long gone by the 16th century.

It was the fault of the muslim religous authorities, but you cant say that in one sentence, if you are a muslim, even today. You have to go on and on for half an hour, naming all the muslim famous scientists, just like you would have to name all the famous russian scientists if you were a russian professor talking to a russian audience.

Even if 17th century muslim society had a Newton or Leibniz or Kopernik or Kepler and they managed to publish, what impact would their discoveries have had if they could not be used in practice for religious reasons?

It hardly matters who invented the lightbulb, if you have to keep using candles for religious reasons.

Also, http://gawker.com/yale-professor-resigns-over-halloween-costume-debacle-1746790033

The guy in the video took a sabbatical, so he is gone as well, at least for a while.

*quality

The first point I think we can safely disagree on without needing to dig further. We can both think of examples of very irrational, angry feminists and we can both think of examples of rational and grounded feminists. I am sorry that your experience tends mostly toward the first, whereas mine tends mostly toward the second; so many people that I know personally or that I see in media are happy to call themselves feminist that to me it's starting to mean absolutely nothing.

Masters and associate masters (nicholas and his wife, respectively) have some kind of non-teaching support role in relation to the campus and the student body. They're not deans, but more sort of community and relations managers. Without excusing the rudeness in the video, I think it would a whole different principle if these were, for example, students shouting down a professor in one of their classes (which I'm sure has also happened). The master's role is different.

"The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..." They don't need as much protection from inflammatory comments, but they need job protection, protection against threats, protection against libel, protection against violence, etc., like anybody else. What we see in the video is a PR guy (public relations between the university and the student body) being caught up in a PR shit storm. He's not getting this shit because he's male but because he's the face of student relations. His wife got a lot of shit as well. I don't think he deserves getting shouted down by anybody, but my point is that this isn't the same as a feminist making a generic blog post about how all men are shitty people; it's a specific shit storm playing out around racism at Yale, his role and his wife's role as responsible for student relations, and about what students believe they are entitled to from the school staff. It's a very specific, very different situation, where the students thought they had a right to expect something from him which maybe wasn't part of his role. (I would bet a reasonably large amount of money that he's more PC than you or I would ever care to be).

Finally, I don't know what you are asking if I would "say to a man who has been raped by a woman" Would I say to them that they should ignore shitty feminist blogs about how men are shit? Absolutely. Somebody who has suffered sexual violence should stay far away from that kind of toxic bullshit. But maybe that isn't the scenario you're presenting - let me mirror it and see if I understand what kind of scenario you want me to consider: if a friend of mine has been robbed by a black man, and then dismisses all black civil rights activists as criminals and thugs, would I try to argue with him? I hope I would, though it would be difficult as hell.

If I knew a man who had been raped by a woman, I would try to support him in getting through that, and not blame all feminists. If I knew a woman who had been raped by a man, I would try to support her in getting through that, and not blame all men's rights activists. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

I thought your title was fine.
It indicated to me that she was a creationist, and a student, not necessarily a student of creationism....although to be perfectly honest, there's no firm 'proof' of either. It's POSSIBLE she's neither a student (and is just sitting in on the lecture) or a creationist (and is only asking the 'question' to give the professor a reason to discuss and rebuke it), but I think it's fine to make the assumption(s) she is both unless either is shown to be wrong.

WOW does James McAvoy look just like a young professor-x in that last scene. Almost like they picked him on purpose or something.

On a related note - an interesting article from Slate written by a University of Kentucky professor who teaches biology (and evolution) to non-biology majors:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/teaching_human_evolution_at_the_university_of_kentucky_there_are_some_students.2.html

As the Professor says it's not terribly useful as a medicine, but it does have a long history as a performance enhancing drug:

http://io9.com/why-strychnine-was-an-early-performance-enhancing-drug-512532345

Preferably used carefully, more isn't better (as some athletes have discovered the hard way).

I don't think the purpose here was really about being tricked or not. These are illusions, people know their eye/brain are being tricked.

He just wanted a deeper understanding of "Why?" the eye is tricked, which far less people would be aware of.

The spinning thingy you may be able to "see the trick" because it's a rather raw implementation. I don't think you can say you can "see the trick" of a normal movie, you just know it's made of still images in quick succession.

The Professor does say the eye has the ability to tweak the parameters, so perhaps this is what your experiencing but I don't believe it goes as far as you being able to just stop your eyes from being eyes.

Or maybe you've got super powers?