[HN Gopher] University moves 70-ton rock off campus after studen...
___________________________________________________________________
University moves 70-ton rock off campus after student backlash
Author : hncurious
Score : 15 points
Date : 2021-08-07 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbc15.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbc15.com)
| enriquto wrote:
| It is apparently impossible to google search for the actual
| nickname of the rock. In duckduckgo you can find it easily, which
| suggests that google forcefully removed the search results that
| mention that word in many natural searches for it. I'm a bit
| proficient at google-fu and pages containing the stupid word just
| do not appear.
|
| I'm not from the USA and I feel ignorant to say anything about
| the racial issues there. But the technical depth of this thing
| is, to say the least, curious.
| [deleted]
| nimbius wrote:
| Speaking as a blue collar guy, they missed an excellent
| opportunity to make 70 tons of racist gravel for backfill or
| rainwater control
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| I wouldn't expect anything less from UW Madison. Overpriced
| school riding on the coattails of previous generations who
| actually gave a damn about science.
| doit4thebitties wrote:
| Rock canceled because it has a nickname.
|
| The color red will be canceled next for being sexist, racist, and
| antisemitic.
| grawprog wrote:
| >It was referred to as a derogatory name in a Wisconsin State
| Journal story in the 1920s
|
| >In a statement released Thursday, the university explained,
| "[r]emoving the rock as a monument in a prominent location
| prevents further harm to our community
|
| >Chamberlin Rock, which is believed to be over two billion years
| old, was described by the university as a large pre-Cambrian-era
| glacial erratic. It was named for Thomas Chamberlin, a geologist
| who served as university president from 1887 to 1892
|
| So, a 2 billion year old glacial erratic was removed because some
| time 100 years ago someone referred to it using a racial
| slur...and its existence was causing harm.
|
| I can see why people get upset about things like Confederate
| statues and such...but this, I mean really...come on...it's not
| like it was officially named after a racial slur, the article
| doesn't seem to imply there was problems with people today
| referring to the rock by the racial slur. This just seems so
| ridiculous at this point.
|
| They are claiming a giant rock causes harm because someone 100
| years ago used a terrible word to describe it in a journal
| article.
|
| If you choose to be offended and upset because someone used a
| word 100 years ago to describe a rock, that's probably on you at
| that point.
| brenschluss wrote:
| It's called a name, and names have real meaning, because
| they're created with social agreements. Paper money, too, is
| valuable only because we agree to do so.
|
| Ergo,
|
| Saying "all this hullabaloo over a bunch of green paper" about
| money is... both true in a physical sense and misses the mark
| in a sociopolitical sense.
|
| Saying "a giant rock causes harm" is both true in the physical
| sense and misses the mark in a sociopolitical sense.
| grawprog wrote:
| It's name is Chamberlin Rock. It wasn't given the other name,
| it was called it one time in a journal article in 1920.
| Overton-Window wrote:
| Capitulating to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for
| disaster. The self-anointed who feign outrage over an
| inanimate object are just chasing power.
| krapp wrote:
| >The self-anointed who feign outrage over an inanimate
| object are just chasing power.
|
| What power do you believe the Wisconsin Black Student
| Union, campus planning committee and Wisconsin Involvement
| Network (Wunk Sheek) are chasing, and why do you believe it
| was necessary for them to conspire to pretend to be upset
| about this inanimate object?
|
| What do you believe this cabal's true end goal is, now that
| the rock has been moved and nothing stands in their way?
| nullc wrote:
| So, if someone calls twitter by a racial slur once in the
| 1920s someone will come and take it away?
|
| You don't say...
| bob33212 wrote:
| People want to get attention for helping society. This looks
| like a good option because no one is going to say they really
| need the rock to stay.
| grawprog wrote:
| I dunno, geologists might. They can be real passionate about
| their rocks. Trust me, once you get one of them on the
| subject of glacial errata, good luck getting them to stop
| before the next glacier comes.
| fegu wrote:
| It is difficult to make one's mind up on the matter without
| knowing what racial slur it was named after. The topic is so
| heated the article didn't dare mention it.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| "n****r head". Also a commonly used term in early 20th century
| America for any large black rock
| polartx wrote:
| Although I'm color blind, black is one of the few colors I
| can confidently identify--based on the pictures, this is
| boulder isn't black?
| MBCook wrote:
| Nope. It's pretty light in color, basically a light gray.
| krapp wrote:
| >It is difficult to make one's mind up on the matter without
| knowing what racial slur it was named after
|
| Why would that matter? A racial slur is a racial slur.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Now rocks are offensive to people?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-07 23:02 UTC)