This is the fourth or fifth one I’ve read about today. The kids are effecting change. I love it.
Thank you for spelling effecting correctly.
Isn't effect a noun, affect a verb? Am I supposed to discern which in other ways?
To "affect" a change would be to alter the change itself, for example if the university had already been reviewing its portfolio then the protesters might be affecting the change by making it happen more quickly.
To "effect" a change would be to cause the change in the first place.
This is one of the few oddities of the English language that I struggle with constantly. It seems like, as a native speaker, most of the other ones just "feel" or "sound" right, but I haven't been able to nail that down with effect/affect for some reason
The trouble is that both words have a verb sense and a noun sense.
The noun sense of affect is something like "mood" or "emotion" and isn't used often, while the noun sense of effect is "thing that happened (because of some cause)" and is a rather common word.
The verb sense of affect is "to cause something to happen (to something)" and is a pretty common word, while the verb sense of effect is more like "to make something be true" as in "effecting change" above.
The mnemonic I use is from dungeons and dragons, some spells are "mind-affecting effects" meaning they change minds and they're caused by the spell being cast.
If I use my Persuasion skill to help someone think their way through a problem, is that a "mind-effecting affect"?
I don't know that I'd say persuasion skills are an affect, but if your mood gives people ideas, that'd work.
I hope to effect a change in your perspective.
"Effect" can also be used as a verb, as used above.
Both can be both nouns and verbs. This to me is the most annoying English oddity of all.
You know, I'm also super pedantic about this and only learned I'd been doing it wrong very recently.
These are full-grown adults in university. They are not kids.
It's all relative
I greeted my fellow 20-ish-year-olds with "what's up kids" at that age as a way of saying we were still young party machines. I am not disrespecting these folks.
I don't think I'd consider most 18 year old "full grown adults"
Old enough to be sent to die and kill innocent non white people for profit so they are old enough to be adults.
The vast, vast majority of 18 year olds are not in the military, and it's really weird to consider all 18 year olds adults because a tiny fraction of them are soldiers
I never once said they all were in the military or that them being in the military made them adults. I said if we consider them adult enough to be able to do that, then we need to just consider them adults in general.
Yeah, and I think that's stupid. It doesn't match reality. Just because 18 happens to be the age at which some policy says you're allowed to be a solider, doesn't magically make it the age that teens become adults.
And I think you are wrong.
Lol k. Agree to disagree.
At least the other guy has the benefit of legal definitions on his side.
My point is that the legal definitions don't match reality.
You failed to provide an alternative though. So as far as anyone else here knows your criteria is completely arbitrary.
In this case, no change happened because the university didn't invest in Israel in the first place.
The students being allowed to peacefully protest at all is a nice change, and hearing about it could encourage other peaceful protesters, who could enact more direct change
Sacramento State’s updated policy states that it “does not have any direct investments in these areas” right now but, in accordance with students’ demands, its investment portfolios will “remain free of such direct investments.”
Students: We're protesting until our school stops investing in stuff that's bad!
University: Uh, we already don't.
Students: We did it! We freed Palestine!
I don't think the students though that divesting would save all the Palestinians. I mean, I am sure one person did, but that is what happens when you have a large group of people. I think they just wanted to apply pressure against Israel where they could.
I think it is based and probably the most effective thing they could do to stop the genocide.
Divesting is a step, but it just allows them to remove personal responsibility for the death/suffering. (Which matches the latent cultural narcissism)
It does not actually stop anything, it may delay the scheduled future.
Meanwhile bombs and bullets already in production will go down range.
Divesting is a step, but it just allows them to remove personal responsibility for the death/suffering.
Uh, no. Divesting from South Africa had a big effect on the end of Apartheid. It's just not enough to do much by itself. But it is enough to push it over the top.
Sure, it took years.
The Palestinians have weeks to months.
I mean, you jest, but a lot of the time, all you can do in this world is limit your own contribution to the problem
That and vote to regulate wrongdoings. It sounds so obvious and yet somehow we're losing that battle.
You attempt a lazy joke here because it seems you need attention, but policy like this matters, especially when things get "quiet" again after the spotlight fades. Also, in addition to divestment, the university also met their demand to appoint “a faculty member from Faculty for Justice in Palestine to sit on the finance committee, ensuring that investments remain ethical every year.”
Attention seeking? It seems like this could have been a single student government vote.
The university’s communications office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Jezebel on whether it is referring explicitly to Israel, or whether it regards Israel’s actions in Gaza as falling under the umbrella of “genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights.”
And more effective, too.
And more effective? Which university had a student government vote that change the university policy?
Edit: Actually, just posting a list of the hundred + of schools that have changed official investment policy is not a fair response. The point is that it happens all the time, but it doesn't grab headlines. SGAs work with university leaders to cooperatively effect change not only on a regular basis, but as an essential part of their functioning.
I'm happy to repost the list if you would like.
Yes, attention seeking - your undereducated pussyfooting is transparent, exhausting and embarrassing, friend.
They did win. They know now that University is morally right and doesn't support a genocide.
They could have just asked first
Wow, I guess listening to the protesters instead of calling cops on them is crazy 🙄
Yeah that’s… that’s the joke
You know what, honestly, I can't blame the above commenter. Have you seen some of the trash headlines are made of these days?
Maybe if it were the National Review, Daily Caller, NYPost, or something like that.
Definitely in that case, but short of something wackily eye-catching like "infoturkbot" or w/e tf that garbage is, I usually dont notice the name until im already on the page. I'm just sayin, I could easily imagine a few circumstances that would lead to someone not getting the obvious sarcasm in the headline.
I think Jezebel should be included in the "something like that"
This is the fourth or fifth one I’ve read about today. The kids are effecting change. I love it.
Thank you for spelling effecting correctly.
Isn't effect a noun, affect a verb? Am I supposed to discern which in other ways?
To "affect" a change would be to alter the change itself, for example if the university had already been reviewing its portfolio then the protesters might be affecting the change by making it happen more quickly.
To "effect" a change would be to cause the change in the first place.
This is one of the few oddities of the English language that I struggle with constantly. It seems like, as a native speaker, most of the other ones just "feel" or "sound" right, but I haven't been able to nail that down with effect/affect for some reason
The trouble is that both words have a verb sense and a noun sense.
The noun sense of affect is something like "mood" or "emotion" and isn't used often, while the noun sense of effect is "thing that happened (because of some cause)" and is a rather common word.
The verb sense of affect is "to cause something to happen (to something)" and is a pretty common word, while the verb sense of effect is more like "to make something be true" as in "effecting change" above.
The mnemonic I use is from dungeons and dragons, some spells are "mind-affecting effects" meaning they change minds and they're caused by the spell being cast.
If I use my Persuasion skill to help someone think their way through a problem, is that a "mind-effecting affect"?
I don't know that I'd say persuasion skills are an affect, but if your mood gives people ideas, that'd work.
I hope to effect a change in your perspective.
"Effect" can also be used as a verb, as used above.
Both can be both nouns and verbs. This to me is the most annoying English oddity of all.
You know, I'm also super pedantic about this and only learned I'd been doing it wrong very recently.
These are full-grown adults in university. They are not kids.
It's all relative
I greeted my fellow 20-ish-year-olds with "what's up kids" at that age as a way of saying we were still young party machines. I am not disrespecting these folks.
I don't think I'd consider most 18 year old "full grown adults"
Old enough to be sent to die and kill innocent non white people for profit so they are old enough to be adults.
The vast, vast majority of 18 year olds are not in the military, and it's really weird to consider all 18 year olds adults because a tiny fraction of them are soldiers
I never once said they all were in the military or that them being in the military made them adults. I said if we consider them adult enough to be able to do that, then we need to just consider them adults in general.
Yeah, and I think that's stupid. It doesn't match reality. Just because 18 happens to be the age at which some policy says you're allowed to be a solider, doesn't magically make it the age that teens become adults.
And I think you are wrong.
Lol k. Agree to disagree.
At least the other guy has the benefit of legal definitions on his side.
My point is that the legal definitions don't match reality.
You failed to provide an alternative though. So as far as anyone else here knows your criteria is completely arbitrary.
In this case, no change happened because the university didn't invest in Israel in the first place.
The students being allowed to peacefully protest at all is a nice change, and hearing about it could encourage other peaceful protesters, who could enact more direct change
it's like violence is the response of an idiot or something
Students: We're protesting until our school stops investing in stuff that's bad!
University: Uh, we already don't.
Students: We did it! We freed Palestine!
I don't think the students though that divesting would save all the Palestinians. I mean, I am sure one person did, but that is what happens when you have a large group of people. I think they just wanted to apply pressure against Israel where they could.
I think it is based and probably the most effective thing they could do to stop the genocide.
Divesting is a step, but it just allows them to remove personal responsibility for the death/suffering. (Which matches the latent cultural narcissism)
It does not actually stop anything, it may delay the scheduled future.
Meanwhile bombs and bullets already in production will go down range.
Uh, no. Divesting from South Africa had a big effect on the end of Apartheid. It's just not enough to do much by itself. But it is enough to push it over the top.
Sure, it took years.
The Palestinians have weeks to months.
I mean, you jest, but a lot of the time, all you can do in this world is limit your own contribution to the problem
That and vote to regulate wrongdoings. It sounds so obvious and yet somehow we're losing that battle.
You attempt a lazy joke here because it seems you need attention, but policy like this matters, especially when things get "quiet" again after the spotlight fades. Also, in addition to divestment, the university also met their demand to appoint “a faculty member from Faculty for Justice in Palestine to sit on the finance committee, ensuring that investments remain ethical every year.”
Attention seeking? It seems like this could have been a single student government vote.
And more effective, too.
And more effective? Which university had a student government vote that change the university policy?
Edit: Actually, just posting a list of the hundred + of schools that have changed official investment policy is not a fair response. The point is that it happens all the time, but it doesn't grab headlines. SGAs work with university leaders to cooperatively effect change not only on a regular basis, but as an essential part of their functioning.
I'm happy to repost the list if you would like.
Yes, attention seeking - your undereducated pussyfooting is transparent, exhausting and embarrassing, friend.
They did win. They know now that University is morally right and doesn't support a genocide.
They could have just asked first
Wow, I guess listening to the protesters instead of calling cops on them is crazy 🙄
Yeah that’s… that’s the joke
You know what, honestly, I can't blame the above commenter. Have you seen some of the trash headlines are made of these days?
Maybe if it were the National Review, Daily Caller, NYPost, or something like that.
Definitely in that case, but short of something wackily eye-catching like "infoturkbot" or w/e tf that garbage is, I usually dont notice the name until im already on the page. I'm just sayin, I could easily imagine a few circumstances that would lead to someone not getting the obvious sarcasm in the headline.
I think Jezebel should be included in the "something like that"
what if they listened but still disagreed with the protestors?
Then at least they should be able to say why they disagree exactly instead of "aNtiSeMiTiSm"
But would that change the outcome? I assume not really.
I guess not. But then again the chance of it happening is zero, or close to it.
Are you asking if direct action campaigns work against the powerful that disagree? Yes, yes they do.