Elsewhere (124)
Kevin D Williamson on where Big Government goes:
In the run-up to the 2012 election, senior IRS executives including Lois Lerner, then the head of the IRS branch that oversees the activities of tax-exempt non-profit groups, began singling out conservative-leaning organisations for extra attention, invasive investigations and legal harassment. The IRS did not target groups that they believed might be violating the rules governing tax-exempt organisations; rather, as e-mails from the agency document, the IRS targeted these conservative groups categorically, regardless of whether there was any evidence that they were not in compliance with the relevant regulations… Also targeted were groups dedicated to issues such as taxes, spending, debt, and, perhaps most worrisome, those that were simply “critical of the how the country is being run.”
An exhaustive archive of IRS-related items can be found here.
Stephen Carter on the narrowness and hubris of student ‘radicals’:
In my day, the college campus was a place that celebrated the diversity of ideas. Pure argument was our guide. Staking out an unpopular position was admired – and the admiration, in turn, provided excellent training in the virtues of tolerance on the one hand and, on the other, integrity. Your generation, I am pleased to say, seems to be doing away with all that. There’s no need for the ritual give and take of serious argument when, in your early 20s, you already know the answers to all questions. How marvellous it must be to realise at so tender an age that you will never, ever change your mind.
And Luke James steers us to the following round-table discussion about the suppression of free speech by self-styled student ‘activists’. If you’ve 30 minutes to spare, the video below is well worth watching, though not exactly encouraging. The participants are Professor of English Janice Fiamengo, whose encounters with such ‘activists’ have been mentioned here previously, Justin Trottier of the Centre for Inquiry, Huffington Post blogger and “community organiser” Rachel Décoste, and Alice McLachlan, Professor of Philosophy at York University, Toronto. The views of Ms Décoste and Ms McLachlan may be of particular interest, though possibly for reasons the ladies didn’t intend.
“I don’t think you get to decide what counts as debate.”
Remember, two of the speakers above are arguing for the righteousness of “debating” like this. And like this. And like these magnificent intellectuals. Because feelings. That such behaviour shows utter contempt not only for the targeted speaker but also for their audience and anyone not protesting is somehow waved aside.
Over the years, readers will have noticed quite a few leftist academics conjuring titillated excuses for intimidation and thuggery – provided of course the intimidation and thuggery are being aimed at someone else. It is, I think, instructive that so many voices of the left should profess great empathy with the mob dynamic, in which personal responsibility can be dispersed and obscured, allowing participants to indulge more freely in emotional crescendos and some physical emphasis. Mob psychology tends to energise participants precisely because of the sense of physical power and promise of moral anonymity, and the implicit threat that violence may ensue should their wishes be frustrated. And while these “collective protests” may be effective in rousing emotion and inflating egos, they aren’t an ideal forum for mental clarity. Perhaps that’s the appeal for the rote radical.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
Another feminist academic turns out to have fascist tendencies. I’m shocked.
Also, creepy smile.
Also, creepy smile.
Heh. It does seem a wee bit insincere. But then, Alice McLachlan’s capacity for evasion and dishonesty is quite striking. Around 5:30, regarding the footage of Fiamengo’s thwarted lecture and discussion, she says: “What I saw warmed me. I saw people who cared very much about gender issues… vigorously, whole-heartedly and determinedly engaging with each other.” Yes, the feminist protestors cared so much they made disagreement impossible and then applauded themselves for having thwarted a discussion that others had travelled to take part in. The only voices heard were the protestors’ own.
And this, remember, is from a professor of philosophy, a supposed intellectual – one who thinks that drowning out disagreement by shrieking abuse and banging on tables – until those who might disagree give up and leave – is a legitimate and admirable form of “debate.” Apparently Ms McLachlan “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her.
If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.
If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.
Quite. But we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy.
And then there’s Ms McLachlan’s disingenuous manoeuvre (around 13:1o) in which an objection to mob tactics, intimidation and shutting down discussion is waved aside as an attempt to “control” the debate. Because expecting students – tomorrow’s intellectuals – not to behave like emotionally incontinent morons is somehow dastardly and oppressive.
Note too just how often she projects and inverts, or plays bait and switch, whereby an incongruous or irrelevant example is used to excuse much more obnoxious tactics. (Tactics, incidentally, that are favoured predominantly by one part of the political spectrum.) And so thuggish behaviour and persistent breaches of university policy – policy to which students have agreed as a condition of their welcome – are excused by Ms McLachlan because to object to such behaviour is supposedly an attempt to “control” the particulars of what students may say.
It’s risible, non-reciprocal and nakedly dishonest.
Fortunately I have avoided this sort of thing my entire life by doing engineering at university and then getting a proper job. I feel sorry for the poor fools who have made interacting with these sort of clowns the source of their income.
Capitalism causes racism. Marxist revolution now!
Capitalism causes racism. Marxist revolution now!
And nothing says intellectual gravitas like purple hair.
And this, remember, is from a professor of philosophy, a supposed intellectual
There’s a fundamental problem with modern philosophy that drives much of this behavior. Have you noticed how modern philosophers have evolved very thin skin? They’re all for attacking and finding fault with what functional society is, but when that society bites back in even the most gentle way, they are stunned to find how little they really understand. Which of course can be quite a shock to their sophisticated temperaments. The reflection and introspection needed to use criticisms to understand why the world is different than how you perceive it and thus to change one’s ways for the better is a bridge too far for them.
Our philosophers are good at talking about things. About how important some things are. About what is right and what is wrong. The latter based mostly on waiting to see the results of someone else’s efforts and then passing judgement as if they knew all along what the right thing to do was. But when it comes to putting real-world action to their words, they freeze up. When you think about it, this is the very thing that makes them philosophers. What they fail to understand is that all of us (well, most of us anyway) who build things, sell things, make things, provide services, run banks, install sewer lines, etc. practice one form of philosophy or another. We think about how the job should be done and then we do it. What makes the rest of the world different from philosophers is that the philosophers stop at the thinking part. They feel that their job is all done at that point and the details are for the little people.
By Baldur’s sweaty codpiece, this is why I don’t have much time for talking about feelings. Is there any sentiment more pathetic than “I’m offended”?
When the Singularity comes and human life is assailed by murderously intelligent vending machines and self-aware roombas, we’ll deserve everything we get.
Expecting a troupe of Womens Studies snorlaxes to behave like the Oxford Union seems naive though. Would you give a lecture to fifty cats and then be surprised when they started purring and frolicking adorably instead of politely listening to you?
This isn’t 1968 or even 1998, when the behaviour of the Grievance Studies menagerie might still have come as a surprise to some. You only need to fire up the internet and you can see them hooting and crying all over Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Comment is Free, Gawker, Reddit, the Hufflepuff Post, et cetera.
#diecisgenderedpatriarchalchristofascistsnackshamingvajazzlingscum
You can’t debate these people. The best option is to mock them till they burst with rage, like Mr Creosote after too many petit thin wafers of social justice indignation, splattering their bile and ambergris over shocked onlookers.
Social Justice Warriors need to feel terribly important, so when you decline to take them seriously and joyfully dance over their trigger warnings while flicking them V-signs hilarity is bound to ensue.
Until the sentient killer roombas – with cats riding on top of them, because kitties owe no loyalty to their human servants, bless their vicious little hearts – begin their long-overdue reign of terror, laughter is our best defence against the cabbage patch Trots.
In Denmark we recently had the ”joy” of yet a group of anti-democratic lefties, that had decided to shut down the rights of free speeches and democratic order, by blowing whistles during the May 1th speech from our Prime Minister, Mrs. Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
These radicals got a lot of attention from our dinosaur media and was even invited to The Danish Public Television (DR) for an interview, where this anti-democratic group would be given the option of explaining the logic, fairness and reason behind this ”brilliant”event.
And then things escalated quickly!
The interview begins with the journalist, holding a whistle in her hand, asking the young spokeswoman: ”Why is it that you will use these (whistles) during the coming speech from our Prime Minister in Copenhagen?”.
The young woman starts answering: ”It is because we have tried to get in contact to our politicians, but….”
Watch 2 minuttes of fun – No language skills are required.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGqEDla7ps
There’s a fundamental problem with modern philosophy that drives much of this behavior.
I think your point is undermined by the blanket generalisation. Take Steven Hicks for example – a modern philosopher who writes books about the problems with Post Modernism. My experience (and my degree was Maths and Philosophy) is that Pure Philosophy is far less narrowly radical than other subjects like sociology. Certainly there is a bias to the left but not sufficient to prevent say Nozick being taught.
Lars, great video. I always wondered when that sort of thing was going to happen, not surprised that Denmark was the first.
Did you notice that the leftist didn’t seem to learn anything from it?
Yes, I was generalizing. As to my point. BTW, it’s Math not Maths…I thought we’d already covered this. Settled science and all that…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA
Ah. Looks like Typepad is back up after another big DDoS attack.
If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.
For someone who claims to care about free speech “a lot,” Ms McLachlan doesn’t seem at all concerned that the behaviour she champions shows utter contempt for anyone not protesting – i.e., anyone who’s there to learn. The behaviour she considers “warming” shows contempt not only for Fiamengo but for those watching online and everyone else present, some of whom had driven for over an hour to get to the lecture and were then kept waiting another hour by the protestors, before both the lecture and planned discussion had to be abandoned. Someone else’s time, someone else’s money, someone else’s opportunity – all wasted. How proud they must be. All that thwarting.
What McLachlan is defending isn’t virtuous or heroic, and it certainly isn’t an attempt at “debate.” It’s malignant narcissism. That Ms McLachlan can’t tell the difference – or pretends she can’t – tells us something about her too.
Has your blog been attacked because of this post? I couldn’t even view it last night and Typepad has been iffy today.
Because feelings.
David, feminists need more Emotionizations©.
http://youtu.be/T2cdPQ5lof8
Freshverbal,
It’s a Typepad-wide problem. Another huge DDoS attack.
Another feminist academic turns out to have fascist tendencies
the feminist protestors cared so much they made disagreement impossible … The only voices heard were the protestors’ own.
More on Professor Machlachlan.
In a paper available online called Forgiveness and Moral Solidarity, which I’ve just given the very skimpiest of skim reads, Machlachlan puts forward a case which argues for admitting acts of ‘third party forgiveness’.
What she appears to be saying in a nutshell is that ‘third-parties’ who are neither the victim or the wrongdoer but basically bystanders to ‘a grievance’ are also morally implicated – they cannot do nothing and choosing to do nothing is an abdication of responsibility.
You’ve seen the video above so I imagine you can already see where this line of reasoning about ‘third parties’ is leading to …
She argues that the third party should be careful not to cause further offence when insinuating themselves into a grievance issue as that might end with the third party talking too loudly over the victim’s own right to speak and act for themselves about their own life:
There are moral risks associated with even the most well-meaning efforts to third-party forgive[ness], … Where there is a significant power imbalance between victim and third-party, moral solidarity may take a back seat to moral deference.
That moral deference is presumably one reason why both Machlachlan and Décoste find the kind of inquiry that Fiamengo does absolutely intolerable.
However, despite these moral risks the third party might carry, Machlachlan goes on to argue that should a victim have the temerity to choose to forgive their oppressor contrary to the wishes (and virtue?) of the third-parties, then those same third-parties can intervene to make the ‘right’ decision for the good of the community as whole:
… the victim’s decision to forgive does not necessarily eliminate the third party’s need to make a similar moral choice […] the most respectful thing that others who identify with the victim may be able to do is meaningfully to withhold their forgiveness and to continue to hold the wrongdoer accountable. [The] value [of the third-party’s right not to forgive] can only be wholly accounted for when we acknowledge that the power to forgive is not limited to immediate victims of wrongdoing.
Does this line of reasoning surprise anyone who follows this blog?
It’s risible, non-reciprocal and nakedly dishonest.
This really does appear to be quite a classic of the genre.
I care a lot about free speech … [the] consequences [of free speech] can even mean the the debate doesn’t happen.
Whuh?
Fløjteaktivisterne fløjtes ud
Quite.
Lars
Fantastic. I speak Danish better tha I thought!
I wonder what they thought afterwards: ‘What fascists they are. They wouldn’t even let us make our point’ perhaps?
I would have loved to have been a mind-reader
Nikw211,
It’s curious just how often those who invoke Marxoid “power imbalances” are determined to excuse or ignore their own abuses of power, even when those abuses are vividly obnoxious, practically Maoist, and even when their excuses are incoherent, non-reciprocal and transparently self-serving.
To pretend, as Ms McLachlan does, that an aversion to mob tactics is an attempt to “control” debate is laughable. Just as it’s laughable to pretend that the screaming and whooping protestors had no power, and no delight in abusing that power, thereby silencing people with whom they disagree. Punishing them. Of the people in that lecture hall, who went home frustrated and out of pocket? Who went home without the chance to speak, or to listen, or debate? And who went home swollen with self-satisfaction? For some, the power to thwart is intoxicating. The goal. The rest is mere pretext, window dressing. These middle-class students aren’t behaving like arrogant, emotionally incontinent shits because they’re not being heard or are somehow being oppressed. They’re behaving this way because it pleases them, because they rather like “power imbalances.” Because that’s who they are.
And again, these aren’t just first-year ingénues; they’re being excused and encouraged by professional educators, grown men and women, supposedly trained in “critical thinking.”
Nikw211:
“Machlachlan goes on to argue that should a victim have the temerity to choose to forgive their oppressor contrary to the wishes (and virtue?) of the third-parties, then those same third-parties can intervene to make the ‘right’ decision for the good of the community as whole”
Interesting. Don’t know if you’ve been following the Richard Scudamore scandal. The press are demanding his head over a joke made in an exchange of private emails about a female colleague who has said she’s not offended by it.
The emails in question were leaked to the press by a temp, who apparently shouldn’t have had access to them. I’m struggling to understand how, morally and legally, this is any different from the phone hacking that has half of News International on criminal trial at the moment, but that’s another issue.
Gotcha 🙂
But we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy.
Thanks, David. First laugh of the day. I’m a long-time lurker and a big fan. Keep it up.
*hits tip jar*
As for the video, I’m glad you found it of use, I thought you might find it interesting.
The contradictory nature of the feminist stance is plain for all to see (whilst these particular feminists didn’t mention online “harassment” of people like Rebecca Watson or Anita Saarkesian) a prominent feminist cause (I’m sure they both agree with) is that people who disagree with (lampoon, satirise or poke fun at) feminists on line are engaging in “bullying” and “harassment”, yet here we see feminists coming out in favour of silencing tactics and even physical intimidation to silence dissent.
If calling a feminist online a “twat” is evidence of widespread misogynistic harassment but blockading doors and physically attacking men whilst vehemently calling them “scum” and “rape apologist” constitutes a wonderful flowering of free speech and political engagement then words cease to mean anything.
How can one seriously claim to be for free speech and against harassment whilst supporting physically blocking access to speeches and the shouting down of speakers?
If physical blockades to prevent access to speeches and noise creation to drown out speakers does not count as a far more egregious example of “harassment” and “bullying” than having feminists statistics challenged or god forbid someone calling a woman a rude word online, it is hard to see what does.
As a heretic of the left myself I have seen this type of contradiction many times before, from equally lettered and established folks.
Whenever I challenge a contradiction I am almost always told that the contradiction doesn’t exist, either because “we are right and those engaging in identical tactics are wrong because we are right” or “we are moral and those engaging in identical tactics are immoral, therefore they are wrong to use similar tactics because they are immoral”
Circular reasoning in action!
In the wake of Lee Rigby’s murder I pointed out that those on the left who were saying his murder was caused by Western foreign policy were engaging in identical tactics to those on the right who said Anders Brievik’s rampage was caused by unbridled immigration and forced multiculturalism.
A good friend of mine (who is a card carrying member of the Labour Party and a human rights lawyer) said that the two were not even remotely similar because, the left are against war and for equal rights and the right is pro war and against equal rights.
EG: We are good, they are bad so what is wrong for them is right for us…..just because!
The feminists above have opened themselves up for similar treatment. I wonder if they will rethink their views in the face of being silenced (as they suggest to Janice Fiamengo) or will they scream “harassment” and stick to their ideological guns?
One thing is for sure as feminists, they can be sure the evil patriarchal police and university management will be keen to take their claims of victimhood far more seriously than the claims of MRAs
Jack,
Keep it up. *hits tip jar*
Thanks, much appreciated. Hitting the tip jar is a very good way to motivate me. So yes, I probably will.
This really does appear to be quite a classic of the genre.
What’s funny, I think, is the conceit that such delinquent behaviour is only indulged in under duress or because of some alleged “power imbalance.” As if it weren’t a choice and actively pursued – something that excites a certain kind of person and makes them feel powerful and important. As Ms McLachlan demonstrates, it takes determination and quite a lot of manoeuvring to not consider, even briefly, this rather obvious possibility.
As I’ve said before, this kind of behaviour is regarded as a credential by many students on the left, as something to be proud of, as practically self-validating. It’s something that elevates them within their own immediate peer group. They’re achieving their own in-group status, their imagined radical chic, by imposing on others – people about whom they simply don’t care or for whom they show outright contempt. It’s not a reciprocal dynamic; it’s essentially parasitic. And the scope for, and pretext for, intimidation and thwarting other people is hardly coincidental. That’s what makes it fun. For a certain kind of person.
Freshverbal – “We are good, they are bad so what is wrong for them is right for us…..just because!”
It’s all about Who/Whom.
Abuse, intimidation, and violence are OK when Oppressed Victims use it.
I’m glad you namechecked Anita Sarkeesian. I’ve been playing computer and videogames for more than 30 years (not non-stop though, I don’t have to wash the Dorito dust out of my folds with a sponge on a stick), so Sarkeesian’s story fascinated me.
For the benefit of anyone who might not have heard of Sarkeesian, gather round, children…
Once apon a time, there was a young feminist called Anita, who noticed that a lot of icky boys like to play videogames instead of undertaking more mature pursuits, like being lectured about feminism.
The games these boys play are often sexist, which is to say, they’re about shooting things or rescuing princesses, instead of being about strong, empowered women smashing the Patriarchy.
A plan hatched in Anita’s mind to turn her feminism and vague awareness of videogames into profit.
She started a Kickstarter to raise money so she could produce a series of YouTube videos about how games are sexist.
So far, so pointless. But Anita was cunning.
She decided to troll 4chan with her feminist message, with predictable results. Armed with the usual rape jokes and “Tits or GTFO” responses one would expect from 4chan, Anita went crying to the sensitive side of the internet about the terrible misogyny she was an innocent victim of.
As a result, White Knights and confused social justice warriors poured $160,000 into Anita’s Kickstarter. These were going to be the most epic and lavishly produced feminist YouTube videos evar! Take that, Doctor Robotnik–I mean, Patriarchy!
Well, the videos appeared… eventually. Boring, stupid videos of Our Heroine playing Super Mario Brothers and such while complaining that Princess Peach is proof of… something or other.
Backers started to wonder where that $160,000 went to. Well, probably “research”. Yes, “research”. That seems plausible. And it costs money to buy a webcam and some old games off eBay.
Anita has since attempted to parlay her awesome feminist videogame skills into being a professional talking head feminist of the Laurie Penny variety.
Now, there are a number of lessons we may draw from this story.
1) White Knights and SJW types deserve to be parted from their cash.
2) No pastime, however seemingly trivial or innocent, will ever be a safe space from deranged lefties who want to politicise everything.
3) Useful people are creative. They, for example, make video games that entertain millions. Sometimes in a crude, throwaway manner like Flappy Bird. Sometimes lavish fusions of art and entertainment of art like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, or Red Dead Redemption.
Feminists aren’t creative. They produce nothing of value. While Miyamoto and David Cage and John Carmack dream up new ideas to dazzle us with, feminists have nothing to offer except finger-waggling criticism.
$160,000 could have funded a feminist video game, but making things is hard. Demanding that other people – men – cater to your tastes instead of their own and their customers’ is easier.
Re Sarkeesian. The irony I particularly like is that she got showered with cash by positioning herself as a damsel in distress, and what video game trope did she criicise in her the first video? The damsel in distress.
What’s funny, I think, is the conceit that such delinquent behaviour is only indulged in under duress or because of some alleged “power imbalance.” As if it weren’t a choice and actively pursued – something that excites a certain kind of person and makes them feel powerful and important.
You’re so sceptical, David. Image-conscious people in their late teens/early twenties are *never* underhand about their motives!
I wonder how many of these academics are parents of teenagers.
Patrick – excellent observation. Yes, she knew exactly how to reel in the white knights and masterfully played the role of a princess needing rescuing (with cash, thanks guys!xxx).
It’s a curious dichotomy in feminism. Are feminists butt-kicking empowered womyn, hear them roar, or are they simpering little girls who need special protection from things like vagazzling and hair removal product ads?
Notice that the real oppression women face around the world – gang rape in South Africa, honour killings in Pakistan, female genital mutilation in Sudan, infanticide of girls in China, etc. rarely garners much mindshare among feminists, who’d much rather talk about how hard it is to be a university educated middle class white woman with a career in academia or the media.
Those girls in Nigeria are a rare exception in having captured some attention for more than five minutes, but even then, what is the Western feminist response? To raise funds to hire some mercenaries to get them back? Putting pressure on the oil-rich government of Nigeria to defend its citizens? Campaigning against Islamic #rapeculture?
No, that would be silly. Instead they’re making selfies and putting them on Twitter. Take THAT, Boko Haram!
Instead they’re making selfies and putting them on Twitter. Take THAT, Boko Haram!
This seems apposite:
Kevin Williamson (again) on the narcissistic creed. His end of page quote, from Fredrik deBoer, is also somewhat relevant.
Having grown up in a multicultural North London enclave populated with Greenham Common feminists, right on “Rock Against Racism” yoof leaders and black activists like Darcus Howe (of whom, despite disagreeing with on much, I have a rather soft spot) my Facebook feed is populated by some of the most pious politically correct social justice tosh known to man.
When Boko Haram first kidnapped the girls most of my feed was filled with accusations of racism against the media for not giving the story sufficient airtime.
“If 200 blonde haired blue eyed girls had been abducted this would be front page news”
Then when it became front page news the focus shifted to the West’s lack of action.
“if 200 American girls had been abducted the Navy Seals would be deployed”
When Michelle Obama did her #BringBackOurGirls selfie, everyone posted pictures of Muslims holding up signs saying
“Your Husband Has Killed More Muslim Girls Than Boko Ever Could #BringBackOurDead”
The more Americans spoke out in solidarity with the #BringBackOurGirls campaign the more talk changed from outrage at the Wests inaction and onto sinister talk about how American solidarity for the campaign was a prelude to a Neocon war of aggression.
Whilst everyone has rightfully condemned Boko it seems the left and concerned politically radical PoC commenting on this are far more interested in searching for hidden racism or American imperialism than they are about Bringing Back Our Girls.
I was trying to think who the deeply sinister Ms McLachlan reminded me of. Then it came to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onm5gjgL97Y
I’m afraid when I hear “Boko Haram” I think someone’s “updated” PG Wodehouse with a token Muslim character. I obviously deserve to be hounded from whatever office I hold.
David – that’s a great article, thank you.
Freshverbal – I always knew Barack Obama hated black people 🙁
I love their other points:
“if 200 American girls had been abducted the Navy Seals would be deployed”
Um, yes. Because the US government generally frowns on its citizens being kidnapped by rapey slave gangs. Unfortunately these girls aren’t American, and their government doesn’t seem bothered. In fact, I get the impression they wish everybody would shut up about “our girls” and let the Nigerian government concentrate on its important work of stuffing the oil money into Swiss bank accounts.
“Your Husband Has Killed More Muslim Girls Than Boko Ever Could #BringBackOurDead”
As usual, the lack of Muslim condemnation of this latest atrocity by their co-religionists is striking, isn’t it? I’m only surprised they haven’t blamed The Jews yet.
Why, it’s almost as if it’s not a religion of peace after all.
Thanks for the ‘whistle’ clip, Lars. That’s absolutely hilarious. I’m impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can’t really imagine the BBC doing this.
I’m impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can’t really imagine the BBC doing this.
It did make the necessary point as directly as possible. Though I can’t help thinking the protestors will devise some enormously self-flattering way to miss it.
And in much the same way, does anyone imagine that Ms McLachlan will watch herself in the video and rethink her assertions, any of them, even slightly? Does anyone here believe that the absurdity of her claims, their incoherence and glaring dishonesty, will be recognised and processed – at all? Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt it. She’s just not that kind of girl.
[ Edited. ]
You can in Ms Décoste’s pretentious opening gambit (“drivel” etc.) she just waves off the findings and statistics cited by Prof Fiamengo as wrong and worthy of nothing but contempt. The condescending hubris is epic. Paikin is a great interviewer (his show “The Agenda” is highly regarded by everyone and he deserves a much bigger pulpit) and he senses that and immediately pushed her for a specific example. Décoste is at least able to handle that to a modest degree. But the contempt and condescension are, I think, a pose that all leftists adopt to try and put their opponents as completely outside the bounds of respectable discourse as a starting point, which means you are not really having a debate, but a re-education session. The condemnation of someone and their views. The contempt takes the place of what would be an opening statement denunciation rendered into a pro forma pose of ridicule after which you just merely yell your point of view without having to defend it from counter-argument. Totally self serving and nice work if you can get it, as well as being totally immature, as the host points out.
The preening western narcissists posting #BringBackOurGirls (btw what’s with this ‘our’, Kimusabe?) must know somewhere in the back of their brains that realistically the only way that they’ll #BringBackOurGirls will be through the actions of #SAS #NavySeals or#DeltaForce.
In which event don’t expect any selfies saying #ThankYouSpecialForces, because, ermm, Teh Patriarchy.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find Alice McLachlan physically attractive?
I feel dirty and ashamed 😀
@Dr Cromarty
Of course if, say, Michelle Obama was really serious about doing something rather than just posing, she could always offer to exchange herself for the kidnapped girls. What’s that you say? She’s not that serious?
It’s curious just how often those who invoke Marxoid “power imbalances” are determined to excuse or ignore their own abuses of power, even when those abuses are vividly obnoxious, practically Maoist, and even when their excuses are incoherent, non-reciprocal and transparently self-serving
David,
You’ve said it more clearly than I could (though perhaps you’ve had plenty of practice with this Blog!), though on the general topic of incoherence …
While on the one hand Machlachlan vigorously supports the protests against Dr Fiamengo on the other she complains that the very same protests have lead to Dr Fiamengo’s views getting a much wider audience than they might ever have done otherwise.
And she’s not wrong there. I almost certainly would never have come across Dr Fiamengo (or Karen Straughan either for that matter) had the Maoist Borgoids not so completely disgraced themselves with their third-rate canrnival sideshow histrionics.
So while for me I suppose it’s had a good result, why, when from her own point of view the protests have not only failed but failed so spectacularly that they have achieved the complete opposite of what they intended, do they giver her a ‘warm’ feeling?
Also, the Maoist thing is spot on as Machlachlan proves here when she says to Fiamengo:
I think that, perhaps, a productive use of your conversation with the protests would be to rethink some of what you’re saying
That’s right. When someone sets of fire alarms, blows horns in your face, stamps their
jackbootsfeet etc. you should immediately capitulate and beg forgiveness for the sin of having a different point of view.And in much the same way, does anyone imagine that Ms McLachlan will watch herself in the video and rethink her assertions, any of them, even slightly?
Puh-wha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaa … No. No, I don’t.
Also, that Williamson piece on Narcissism was excellent and I loved the paragraph comparing Bishop Berkeley with this ‘ 21st-century epigones’.
Patrick,
Re: the Richard Scudamore scandal (or ‘scandal’) – I’ve only just heard about that story today and so don’t really know anything about it.
However, from what you’re saying it does sound like another instance of what happens when people with a paranoid conspiracy-theory mindset leap on something fairly trivial as evidence that finally the mask has slipped and that the real ‘Evil’ underneath the surface has finally been unveiled. Context, that it was a private email for instance, be damned naturally.
For the benefit of anyone who might not have heard of Sarkeesian, …
Heh.
Saw Sarkeesian on a documentary on the BBC last week and probably would have forgotten all about her until I came across that thunderf00t guy’s video series Femism vs Facts on YouTube. Can be worth a watch if you have the time spare and haven’t seen them.
Parts one, two and three
I’m impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can’t really imagine the BBC doing this.
This is, word for word, I s**t you not, how Jon Snow started yesterday’s 19 May edition of the UK’s Channel 4 News:
Labour’s shadow Home secretary Yvette Cooper describes UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s comments about Romanians as racist […] and UKIP’s rise is far from unique: tonight we report on Greece, where Golden Dawn is prospering
I’m not a fan of UKIP or Farage and find both him and their ideas frankly rather daft, but all that said I was gobsmacked that Jon Snow, on prime time news, actually made a direct parallel between Farage/UKIP and Golden Dawn – Golden Dawn! A bona fide extreme ultra-nationalist group complete with paramilitary boot boys and a Hellenized swastika as a flag. What the f… ?!?
I nearly spat tea all over the telly when I heard Snow do that. Surely that was so libellous that it would be actionable in court?
Curiously, I note that this evening’s C4 news led with a 20-minute long report devoted to the lives of Bucharest’s 6,000 homeless drug addicts about whom Snow commented:
Our report tonight exposes the failure of the fast assimilation of Romania, one of the EU’s newest members. It also helps explain why so many across Europe fear their arrival.
What could possibly have prompted such a spectacular volte-face just 24 hours later I really can’t imagine.
Hi David,
Long time reader and a lad in his late 20s currently undergoing a wrenching separation with the Left. What I would like to know is if it is just a function of the way my values have changed over the past year, or if it really is the case that the narcissism, self-promotion and irresponsible grievance mongering of the liberal left has been entrenching itself at an exponential rate.
In addition to the ‘debate’ up the top, i have in the past few hours seen
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/exposed-richard-scudamore-sexist-emails-premier-league-chief-executive?commentpage=2
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/the-boko-haram-terrorists-are-not-islamic.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/its-official-at-dartmouth-the-word-fiesta-is-racist-and-white-people-cant-use-it/
amongst much other drivel. It’s like somewhere between W1 and the Lower East Side there’s a giant, sentient Imac churning out an endless procession of confused, wilfully ignorant sentences before sending in the nanobots to fill up 500 disqus comments with outrage and blame. Most striking of all is the rigor with which these organs (heirs to a storied liberal tradition which informed much of my political education as a youngster) so completely erase or mock the very tenets that ideology.
Worst of all, I’m finding it very difficult to ignore just how neatly this development has correlated with the presence and leadership of women in the media. I don’t want to be that guy, not at 28, but the censorious scolding, brittle indignation, and argument from authority (‘of course I value free speech, I teach John Stuart Mill’) that characterizes the new frontier of new media is too obvious to ignore.
I don’t want to be melodramatic but now the that Whiggish conception of infinite historical progress has been pushed out of my mind it’s like the scales have fallen from my eyes and I despair.
To paraphrase Conrad:
‘The drivel…the drivel…’
Chris,
Welcome aboard.
What I would like to know is if it is just a function of the way my values have changed over the past year…
I don’t think the various tics and vanities that I describe here are particularly new in terms of leftist psychology; plenty of examples predate me. But I do think they’re becoming more… obvious and pervasive. The long march through our institutions has apparently had some effect. Is having some effect.