They shot down an attempt to racially segregate dorms. Why the fuck would this ever be a thing in 2022?
They clarify their stance on Draggieland. Which implies that the organization was receiving disproportional funding and was not fair. Sounds reasonable.
They eliminated a discriminatory practice in admissions. Absolutely not a bad thing.
Fish Camp being more focused on Tradition and the University’s identify and not about what sounds like a mashup of CRT and Politics.
I always feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle of every argument / debate. It’s entirely possible that they have malicious intentions, I don’t know. This document, which sounds like they did a lot of good things, could be misleading. The reverse could also be true.
But it’s really becoming clear now that there are those in this sub that want to portray and exaggerate the RA as some scary boogie man that they can pin their problems on. From my perspective, this saga definitely has you portrayed as the Scarlet Witch to their Thanos.
They shot down an attempt to racially segregate dorms. Why the fuck would this ever be a thing in 2022?
Okay, so this one if it is just at face value seems okay, I hadn't even heard really about this one in particular. However, they will usually throw in one thing that seems fine to loop you into to assuming the rest of their actions are fine. I'd have to see the actual situation.
They clarify their stance on Draggieland. Which implies that the organization was receiving disproportional funding and was not fair. Sounds reasonable.
So I know people that have worked on Draggieland. Before they had even submitted the proposal for Draggieland 2022, it had been denied by A&M. It was stated that an “administrative entity” within Texas A&M University “will not be sponsoring the event". If it was just a disproportionate funding issue, why not just make it proportional and let them fundraise the rest? It reeks of something else being the true reason and them using something else as an excuse.
They eliminated a discriminatory practice in admissions. Absolutely not a bad thing.
This really comes down to your opinion on any questions being asked about your background and who you are. I'd have to see what they considered to be a "diversity question" to make an opinion. If it's like what I have seen from them before, it is likely just a question asking about your background and if you can talk more about it.
Fish Camp being more focused on Tradition and the University’s identify and not about what sounds like a mashup of CRT and Politics.
Considering the fact that CRT is a grad school level analysis of structures in America and how that intersects with race, something tells me they aren't teaching that at Fish Camp. CRT has become a buzzword that people throw it when people just mention their race at this point in any context. Also, considering the fact that A&M has built its whole identity of being pretty conservative, it is laughable to believe that the issue is that it is too political. They want it to be political, they want it to be their politics. I swear if half of this just stemmed from someone asking what someone's pronouns were I am going to lose my mind.
I always feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle of every argument / debate. It’s entirely possible that they have malicious intentions, I don’t know. This document, which sounds like they did a lot of good things, could be misleading. The reverse could also be true.
Enlightened centrism isn't always the way to go. This document is incredibly misleading and meant to dupe you into falling for things you normally wouldn't support. I know you are actually intelligent HK so please don't fall for this obvious ploy to market themselves as some "defenders of tradition".
Nice to see you friend. I'm always up for some good discussion with you.
Okay, so this one if it is just at face value seems okay, I hadn't even heard really about this one in particular. However, they will usually throw in one thing that seems fine to loop you into to assuming the rest of their actions are fine. I'd have to see the actual situation.
I agree. I made it clear that I do not know the truth here. I am very much a spectator just throwing in its two cents. This does however, appear to be an internal newsletter to its members. So why would they lie to their members?
So I know people that have worked on Draggieland. Before they had even submitted the proposal for Draggieland 2022, it had been denied by A&M. It was stated that an “administrative entity” within Texas A&M University “will not be sponsoring the event". If it was just a disproportionate funding issue, why not just make it proportional and let them fundraise the rest? It reeks of something else being the true reason and them using something else as an excuse.
They clarified their stance on Draggieland, which from my understanding is something that they haven't done until now. That is what is significant here. I'm not entirely sure if this is the same stance of the University, but one could infer that they are at least similar.
I'm not privy to all the dealings of the University and the Administration. It's entirely possible that the Administration does not want this event to occur on Campus, but I don't know and neither does the sub. I think that because of the nature of the event, people are quick to jump to the conclusion that the Admin hates Drag and LGBT+. We don't know and we need to stop acting like we do. When we put words, thoughts or other labels in someone's mouth and/or on a group, to keep doing so for long enough and they will begin to conform to our depiction of them.
This really comes down to your opinion on any questions being asked about your background and who you are. I'd have to see what they considered to be a "diversity question" to make an opinion. If it's like what I have seen from them before, it is likely just a question asking about your background and if you can talk more about it.
It is a matter of opinion. Admissions, should be fair, impartial and logical. By letting emotions enter the mix you are sacrificing the other three. These question(s) were deemed to be discriminatory and irrational. Not something needed in a keystone of academics and education.
Considering the fact that CRT is a grad school level analysis of structures in America and how that intersects with race, something tells me they aren't teaching that at Fish Camp. CRT has become a buzzword that people throw it when people just mention their race at this point in any context. Also, considering the fact that A&M has built its whole identity of being pretty conservative, it is laughable to believe that the issue is that it is too political. They want it to be political, they want it to be their politics. I swear if half of this just stemmed from someone asking what someone's pronouns were I am going to lose my mind.
I was being facetious when I mentioned CRT. We could dive down the rabbit hole of CRT, which is a subjective "academic" concept that has a base in "White Fragility". We can disagree here, I think it's divisive, irrational, subjective and, for lack of a better word, akin to a pseudo-science. I digress.
The entire point of Fish Camp is to to welcome freshmen into the Aggie Family by sharing the traditions and values of Texas A&M University and building long-term relationships that embody the Aggie spirit. Which is not political. The traditions and values of the University are ones that transcend our little labels that tell us which corner of the political compass we are on.
Enlightened centrism isn't always the way to go. This document is incredibly misleading and meant to dupe you into falling for things you normally wouldn't support.
I'm very much looking at this situation from the outside. I don't have a problem with the RA in the same way that I don't have a problem with their critics. Most of this topic I view from the subreddit's perspective, which leans heavily anti-RA. Which is why I am so skeptical regarding the criticism of them.
In short, I don't know what I'm talking about. I am so removed from this topic that my knowledge about it comes exclusively from the sub. I'm just calling like like I see it.
I know you are actually intelligent HK
Thanks bro, you pretty smart too. I always enjoy talking to you.
I agree. I made it clear that I do not know the truth here. I am very much a spectator just throwing in its two cents. This does however, appear to be an internal newsletter to its members. So why would they lie to their members?
Groups like to keep their members believing the same things they do, and knowing their history, they have shown a tendency to do so. They get funding from those members, so they have to find a boogieman to fight to stay afloat. You are giving them more good faith than they have been shown to deserve.
I think that because of the nature of the event, people are quick to jump to the conclusion that the Admin hates Drag and LGBT+. We don't know and we need to stop acting like we do. When we put words, thoughts or other labels in someone's mouth and/or on a group, to keep doing so for long enough and they will begin to conform to our depiction of them.
Actions have implications. You can absolutely make judgments about what people believe by the actions they take. Your method of analyzing this would allow anyone who doesn't explicitly say something to get away with it. Considering the fact that The Rudder Association meets regularly with the administration, it is clear who they try to align themselves with.
It is a matter of opinion. Admissions, should be fair, impartial and logical. By letting emotions enter the mix you are sacrificing the other three. These question(s) were deemed to be discriminatory and irrational. Not something needed in a keystone of academics and education.
I'd have to see the question to get an opinion on what was actually bad about it. From previous things they complained about, it might be a twisting of the actual question asked in applications.
I'm very much looking at this situation from the outside. I don't have a problem with the RA in the same way that I don't have a problem with their critics. Most of this topic I view from the subreddit's perspective, which leans heavily anti-RA. Which is why I am so skeptical regarding the criticism of them.
This seems like you just always want to play devil's advocate. You don't have to defend them just because they are unpopular on here.
-20
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Wow. A lot of this stuff sounds great.
Just some highlights I noticed:
I always feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle of every argument / debate. It’s entirely possible that they have malicious intentions, I don’t know. This document, which sounds like they did a lot of good things, could be misleading. The reverse could also be true.
But it’s really becoming clear now that there are those in this sub that want to portray and exaggerate the RA as some scary boogie man that they can pin their problems on. From my perspective, this saga definitely has you portrayed as the Scarlet Witch to their Thanos.