Elsewhere (143)
Susan Kruth and Harvey Silverglate on educational environments and the things you can’t say in them:
On campuses across the country, hostility toward unpopular ideas has become so irrational that many students, and some faculty members, now openly oppose freedom of speech. The hypersensitive consider the mere discussion of the topic of censorship to be potentially traumatic. Those who try to protect academic freedom and the ability of the academy to discuss the world as it is are swimming against the current… Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement — a disorder whose spread in academia grows by the day.
Note how the code words and euphemisms that have replaced salty language have become so numerous that readers now struggle to guess what the offending word was. See also this.
Thomas Sowell on the current occupant of the White House:
People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs. You cannot tell whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what they are trying to do. When Obama made a brief public statement about Americans being beheaded by terrorists, and then went on out to play golf, that was seen as a sign of political ineptness, rather than a stark revelation of what kind of man he is, underneath the smooth image and lofty rhetoric.
And Peter Suderman reminds us why tar and feathers should never be out of fashion:
Professor Jonathan Gruber was, by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped design the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modelled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, according to the New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill “to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” Jonathan Gruber, in other words, knows exactly what it took to get [Obama’s] health care law passed. And that’s why you should take him seriously when he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed.
Note that our progressive Professor Gruber is happy to admit deceiving the electorate – deliberately, at length and on a grand scale – in order to get his own way. Along with $400,000 in consultancy fees.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.
You mustn’t confuse the [c-word] with [the other c-word]. That could be triggering.
Re: Sowell
I’ve asked friends the following question: If Obama were trying to screw up the country, what would he do differently? Contemplating the answer to that is very scary.
If Obama were trying to screw up the country, what would he do differently?
It occurs to me that Obama’s incongruous golfing sessions are as character-revealing as, say, the speech that Thatcher delivered six hours after the Brighton bombing. Though what they reveal in terms of character is perhaps somewhat different.
he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed.
“You have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy Pelosi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
“[We] have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy Pelosi.
Which, oddly enough, evokes the image of a stool sample.
We’re just wild and [ableist slur], aren’t we?
Ableist.
I’d heard this before but wasn’t quite sure what it meant. So I used my mad Google skills and found this:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/parker-marie-molloy/2013/10/15-crazy-examples-of-insanely-ableist-language/
Examples of ableist language include “crazy,” “insane,” “lame,” “dumb,” “retarded,” “blind,” “deaf,” “idiot,” “imbecile,” “invalid (noun),” “maniac,” “nuts,” “psycho,” “spaz.”
The only one of these words not in my normal vocabulary is “spaz”, because I prefer “spacker”.
But how can I be blamed for my terrible ableism? I’m of this generation:
In 1981, the last year of his life, Joey Deacon was featured on the children’s magazine programme Blue Peter for the International Year of the Disabled. He was presented as an example of a man who achieved a lot in spite of his disabilities. Despite the sensitive way in which Blue Peter covered his life, the impact was not as intended. The sights and sounds of Deacon’s distinctive speech and movements had a lasting impact on young viewers, who quickly learned to imitate them. His name and mannerisms quickly became a label of ridicule in school playgrounds across the country.[4]
British comprehensive school playgrounds in the 80’s were not for the faint of heart. They were about bullying, football, trading football stickers (I always had a surfeit of crap ones like Sheffield Wednesday, everybody wanted Liverpool), more bullying, fighting each other, fighting kids from other schools who encroached on our turf, running through the girls toilets on a dare, competing to see who could pee the highest, British Bulldog, letting the air out of the tyres on teachers’ cars, and making fun of people by calling them joeys or “mongo”.
Don’t judge us, sensitive snowflake millenials. There were only four channels on the telly and we half-expected to be nuked by Russia any day. I saw “Threads” and nearly sharted myself. Kajagoogoo was in the charts. I had adults tell me that Maggie Thatcher was going to get us. It was enough to drive anybody nuts – I mean, crazy – I mean, mentally hilarious.
Don’t hate us 80’s survivors, or we’ll come round to your house and make you listen to The Chicken Song while Keith Chegwin lets the air out of the tyres on your car.
But back to our super-sensitive word policeperson:
Maybe you’ll call me overly PC, and that’s fine. When it comes down to it, though, if there’s a less harmful way of saying something, I try to err on that side of things. If you disagree with someone, rather than calling them “crazy,” try one of the following: illogical, irrational misleading, lying, not thinking, incapable of critical thinking, an asshat, a dipshit, irrelevant, rationalizing.
No.
And I’ll tell you for why: those words are crap as insults. “Asshat”? That’s not an insult, it’s French for “please punch me”.
Good insults are finely sharpened rhetorical spears that pierce the ego of your antagonist and lodge in his limbic system.
Telling us not to use good old fashioned insults is like telling an Italian not to smoke on the toilet. It is an infringement of human rights.
Not only will your writing be more descriptive (unless you chose “asshat” or “dipshit” from the above list, in which case, maybe it’s not all that much more descriptive), but you’ll avoid the collateral damage of offending innocent people.
Some people live to be offended. Rage is the opiate of the Marxists. Modifying – blandifying – our language to match the dictates of the PC police won’t satisfy them. They’ll just come up with inane new things to be offended at, like “ableism”.
@Steve
. . . letting the air out of the tyres on teachers’ cars . . .
. . . only to be flummoxed when we discovered that in reality, their cars had tires.
[Insert some sort of smiley-face thing here]
On Suderman on Gruber:
If we are to survive this age of mendacity—all bets are off—, we need, first, to speak and write plainly about what our governments have become. It is worse than no help at all to say that Gruber admits that “it was critical to not be transparent” about Obamacare in order to pass it. When Gruber says, or rather instructs, that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” he means (obviously) that mendacity not only works—we know that—, but it is morally and politically right for governments to lie to and otherwise deceive the citizen-sovereign (Try using that quaint description of the people without injuring yourself.) and other branches of government. This is much stronger than Suderman’s characterization of Gruber as believing “it’s acceptable to deceive people ,if he believes that’s the only way to achieve his policy preference”. [emphasis added] Gruber, Obama and his gang of thugs and enablers in the Press and Academia, believe that it is a morally and politically required of our “leaders” to lie to and deceive, not just the people, but Congress, the CBO, and the Supreme Court. To shy away from such blunt affirmations, out of a sense of propriety or “an over-abundance of caution” (Please forgive me) only enables the liars in their war against us. Call President Mendacity what he is: President Perfidy.
why tar and feathers should never be out of fashion
Also lamp posts and rope.
Sort of accurate, some would say
http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/11/11/daniel-clowes-on-modernism/
Jordan Houston continually refers to “white privilege” as though it were innate, which means…
It occurs to me that she hasn’t thought this one through.
Shorter version of Gruber:
“We were willing to use any means necessary to get what we wanted.”
How psychologically far are people like Gruber from imprisoning and even executing dissenters if they ever have the power to do so? Obedience is the only virtue recognized by the true Statist.
It is encouraging to note that American voters were never fooled by the mendacity of the Obamacare proponents. It is discouraging to note that both the Democrat and Republican leaderships are defending Obamacare from any attempts to repeal it.
try one of the following: illogical, irrational misleading, lying…
Of course in the next round of offence-seeking these would be logicalist, rationalist, truthist and so on.
And also we can’t write things like the [c-word]. This is just transitive triggering (metatriggering?) and it’ll cause the delicate little petals to get even more agitated because they won’t be sure which [c-word] is meant and will obsess over all of the possibilities.
Gruber says that his lies were only successful because of the stupidity of the American voter; but the American voter was never fooled by the claims for the ACA and it has been unpopular since it was first mooted. It was passed by strict party line voting, procedural chicanery, and bribery. It was maintained by bizarre Supreme Court rewritings of the central part of the law required to pass constitutional muster (incidentally making its origin in the Senate unconstitutional,) and has continued on the strength of repeated illegal executive alterations of the law without reference to the legislative branch. The poor bloody voters never got a look in.
R. Sherman – as a trans-istor radio owner and British person, I find your Americanocentric linguistic imperialism offensive.
It’s bad enough that your country has subjected my people to Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, and Celine Dion, but now you seek to literally and figuratively erase the humble British tyre from existence?
If I’ve learned anything from watching American TV shows such as “The Littlest Hobo” and “The Kids In The Hall”, it’s that the only thing you hosers understand is a hockey stick raised aloft in anger, eh?
We Britons are a proud and a fierce people. We invented One Direction, and we’re not afraid to use them in anger if necessary.
From the 40 greatest quotes of Richard Madeley:
38. After a man breaks down crying after meeting the paramedics who saved his life in a motorbike accident: “Stop crying! This is supposed to make you happy! Anyway after the break, the biggest dog in the UK. And he really is big. Don’t miss it.”
28. Talking to a child who has spinal injuries meaning he had to wear a huge neck and head brace: “Hey you look just like Buzz Lightyear.”
34. In reply to John Fashanu saying his nightmares were so bad, he often woke up with his bed saturated: “With sweat?”
http://happyfingersproductions.com/guest-posts/defending-the-indefensible/
the 40 greatest quotes of Richard Madeley
Heh. I can even hear the voice.
The n-word
So students never, ever listen to The Wu Tang Clan or watch Tarantino films, right?
@Steve
I feel your pain.
Understand, we Americans view our British friends sort of like children whose parents are getting on in years but who refuse to leave the neighborhood where they raised their family, even though its becoming increasingly seedy and they (the parents) are beset by ever increasing numbers of confidence men trying to sell them new siding for their house. Not to mention, we have to deal with the Canadian sister who insists upon wearing Birkenstock sandals to Thanksgiving dinner and while bringing something with unidentifiable organic greens instead of mashed potatoes as we asked. And don’t get me started on the Australian brother whose entire life is predicated on surfing and a good tan, or the Indian & Paki twins who end each holiday dinner in a fist fight. It’s hell being the “good” child. For the love of God, please move into the extra bedroom we’ve constructed in our basement.
Oh, and you forgot Justin Bieber. Somehow, we get blamed for him, too.
Regards.
Steve
The Spastics Society changed its name to Scope, and, unsurprisingly, my daughter and friends started to call each other a ‘scopey’ rather than a ‘spaz’ or ‘spacker’.
They would also use the term ‘Harvey’. When I asked what a ‘Harvey’ was, I was told that it was the new PC term for someone of mixed race parentage.
The hypersensitive consider the mere discussion of the topic of censorship to be potentially traumatic.
I dispute “hypersensitive” and “traumatic,” as if their widdle hawts were truly being broken.
The outrage is a pose: nothing more. A person’s reason for striking the pose may vary from the desire to destroy an enemy to the urge to fit in with the crowd — but to rhetorically concede that their pretenses are valid by using their terminology sans scare quotes is not helpful in the least.
It’s not hypersensitivity: it’s hysteria, with the etymology of that term being especially relevant.
People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.
That cannot be emphasized enough. I scream at the radio/screen/page every time someone says that the Dems “don’t understand economics/the Constitution,” as if a Hillsdale College lecture would straighten them out.
Obama understands capitalism and the Constitution as well or better than the rest of us — the difference being that he wishes to subvert and replace the current system with an oligarchy rather than set us back on the strait and narrow.
I think the only public figure who doesn’t rhetorically give ObamaCo the benefit of the doubt is Rush. Everyone else gets coy and “I don’t understand why they don’t see that socialism doesn’t work” and other palaver.
That really needs to stop. Call a spade a spade and go from there.
I dispute “hypersensitive” and “traumatic,” as if their widdle hawts were truly being broken.
Agreed. The insincerity shouldn’t pass unremarked.
Steve
Good insults are finely sharpened rhetorical spears that pierce the ego of your antagonist and lodge in his limbic system.
I can still remember when I was at school when the usual insults were wanker, cunt and fucker, an acquaintance/friend called another school mate a “twerp”. The effect was devastating.
Oh, and you forgot Justin Bieber. Somehow, we get blamed for him, too
While it should be noted he is a native Canuck, you forget. We got stuck with him when we lost that hockey game to Canada last February. Though why they got the choice of weapons is a matter of dispute. Then for some stupid reason the Steelers invited him to their NYJ pre-game Bible Study:
http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2014/11/09/pittsburgh-steelers-fans-blame-justin-bieber-jets
You would think people would know better.
“It occurs to me that Obama’s incongruous golfing sessions are as character-revealing as, say, the speech that Thatcher delivered six hours after the Brighton bombing. Though what they reveal in terms of character is perhaps somewhat different.”
I suggest a Captain Queeg-like retreat into fantasy.
I dispute “hypersensitive” and “traumatic,” as if their widdle hawts were truly being broken.
Point.
It’s the sign of a ruthlessly avaricious territoriality.
So not surprisingly, it’s therefore richly ironic that the adherents of this kind of thing seem to be forever obsessed with the notion of ‘gatekeepers’ – as if that’s not precisely what they are doing themselves – and who also express revulsion at the concept of private property and any financial gain (unless, that is, it’s been acquired ‘fairly’ through the largesse of a government ministry).
I just can’t grasp how, quote-unquote, “owning” a source of perceived prejudice and injustice is not just as (if not actually even more) sharply segregationist than the actual discrimination they are supposed to be defying.
I mean, it’s a dark vision indeed that considers the division of the world into separate fiefdoms of oppression – in which everyone* gets to be the absolute dictator of a given sphere – to be a vision of ‘equality.’ More precisely, it sounds like the vision of an embittered bureaucrat.
*Well, perhaps not everyone.
The misuse of the word ‘violence’ when the proggie idiot actually means “I was slightly offended” depresses me more than almost anything else.
Words (and for that matter, catcalls) are not ‘violence’.
God I hate the New Left. At least the Old left could be proven wrong by nationalised industries dying on their arses.
In reference to those [ableist slur] students, I’d forgotten how good this was:
A subtler form of corruption is that those who use kafkatraps in order to manipulate others are prone to fall into them themselves. Becoming unable to see out of the traps, their ability to communicate with and engage anyone who has not fallen in becomes progressively more damaged. At the extreme, such causes frequently become epistemically closed, with a jargon and discourse so tightly wrapped around the logical fallacies in the kafkatraps that their doctrine is largely unintelligible to outsiders.
Which David and others discussed here a ways back.
Gruber may have spilled the beams on the rampant dishonesty in getting Obamacare passed; but don’t underestimate the sheer head-pounding exercises in vituperative defense of him.
Helen Lovejoy couldn’t have done that any better.
Steve2: Steveageddon
Well, I though it was funny.
BTW, If the music of your fellow subjects of Her Britannic Majesty offends you, please feel free to turn off your wireless set.
Which David and others discussed here a ways back.
As I said at the time, it’s worth noting that the exponents of Kafkatrapping tend to be students or former students, or people who’ve spent much too long in academia – usually lecturers in subjects of little value or repute. Which is to say, this particular mental dysfunction has been taught. The wheels of their minds haven’t fallen off randomly, by accident. They were loosened deliberately. It’s an act of mental vandalism.
Re Professor Jonathan Gruber and his pride in duping the electorate, Jeff Goldstein has some thoughts:
Sounds like a plan.
Controlling which words are allowed, and what they mean, is an old game.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
It’s an act of mental vandalism.
And one which in turn leads to social and cultural acts of vandalism.
Sounds like a plan.
I hate to be a party pooper, but I think the logic of the Kafka-trap would work against the success of such a plan; at best it would likely reinforce an already existing stalemate.
A person (e.g. Gruber) who believes it is justifiable to resort to willful deception to achieve their goals, is someone who also very likely believes that their hand has been forced into doing so by an iniquitous and corrupt society.
In other words, the reasoning goes, if they were living in a good and virtuous society, there would be no need to circumvent accepted protocols because such a society would have enthusiastically embraced their objectives without question.So when in fact they discover obstacles, this is not seen as a normal part of a working democracy but as proof of systemic corruption. Having thus satisfied themselves that the system is broken beyond repair, they are free to use deception without the need to trouble themselves with such trivialities as ethics.
It’s not their fault, you see, it was society made them do it.
And in that it bears an eerie resemblance to the justifications I’m told career housebreakers use – “They can afford to buy a new telly. so what does it matter if I take theirs?”, “They can claim it all back on insurance, anyway. And I bet they fiddle their claim too, so I’m sort of doing them a favour actually”, “If these people walked a mile in my shoes, they’d do exactly the same as me” and so on.
The adrenalin rush that comes from breaking the rules plays absolutely no part in it, I’m sure.
OT
I apologise in advance if this is lowering the tone, but did any other UK readers see this Channel 4 programme?
The programme makers have a right to their views, and I accept that there is a place for strident polemics, but this programme was … so utterly and spectacularly dishonest that it resulted in the basest form of propaganda I think I have ever seen on air.
@Nik:
“Unfortunate that the working class hero chosen by Bacon and Mason to push their quasi-Marxist world view happens to be a fraud, a racist and a homophobe…”
http://order-order.com/2014/11/11/channel-4-promotes-racist-homophobic-fantasist/
R. Sherman – it’s the Kiwis I feel most sorry for. Nobody thinks about New Zealand, unless The Lord Of The Rings is on.
Theophrastus – yes. Apparently the people of the Falkland Islands earned the nickname “Bennies” among members of H.M Forces stationed there, due to their similarity to the simple-minded wool hat fancier from Crossroads.
After some party-pooping officer decided to ban the term “Bennies” so as not to offend the Bennies, the troops started calling them “Stills”. As in “still Bennies”.
mike fowle – “Twerp” should be put on the list of endangered British slurs. Also, “dickhead”.
I take a measure of childish glee in using the word “pikey”. Usually with a Jason Stathamesque Estuary accent. Cockney is a wonderful accent for insults. You mug, you muppet, you slaaaaag! (Eastenders drum solo)
Ray – How will I know if there’s a four minute warning if my wirless is off? Did Frankie Goes To Hollywood teach us nothing?
Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable. Notably, if the model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people: (a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and (b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime. No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!
Which is a lovely piece of reasoning, but it will not resound with the “kafkatrappers”, because they already recognise this flaw and treat it as a species of Original Sin, hence the “check your privilege” stance. This, of course, serves merely to layer yet another fallacy over the original premise, but you will still get nowhere in pointing this out because theirs is a quasi-religious psychological delusion.
Meanwhile, in Liverpool:
Does this outrage bus stop at the Pier Head?
Charles Cooke isn’t at all surprised by Professor Gruber’s pride in duping the electorate.
After some party-pooping officer decided to ban the term “Bennies” so as not to offend the Bennies, the troops started calling them “Stills”. As in “still Bennies”.
In the some things never change department, when I was participating in festivities in Somalia the term for the locals was the very descriptive, and not very offensive, “Skinnies” until some REMF filed an EO complaint, and the cousin of the officer above declared “Skinnies” to be verboten lest we offend the friendly folks.
Re Nik:
A person (e.g. Gruber) who believes it is justifiable to resort to willful deception to achieve their goals, is someone who also very likely believes that their hand has been forced into doing so by an iniquitous and corrupt society.
Very much agree. My wife was rather shocked by this story, asking how such people can live with themselves. I explained it’s because they already know they are more moral and working on a higher authority, thus the ends justify the means. Even if it means a crackhead gets sentenced to 37 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/duped-by-innocence-project-milwaukee-man-now-free-b99386015z1-281852841.html
@Steve
Actually, I’ve tried to put the Kiwi brother out of my mind after the unfortunate “Haka Incident” two Thanksgivings ago, which incident sent the turkey flying onto the dining room carpet, thereby necessitating a run to a) the gas station for frozen pizza and b) resulted in a run on our bourbon stash.
They have nice non-Nordic fjords, though. I’ll give them that.
Steve, after seeing Snatch, I had to ask an English friend “What does ‘Pikey’ mean?” His response, “Nothing good.”
And there’s this…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11225326/Vivienne-Westwood-People-who-cant-afford-organic-food-should-eat-less.html
And there’s this…
I’m still trying to fathom what it is she’s wearing.
“Rage is the opiate of the Marxists.” I would pay you money to borrow this, but thanks to the innernut, I don’t got to.
Good gads, Westwood is one of these Social Justice Wombats, eh? Off with her head….
Let them eat less!
Rage is the opiate of the Marxists.
The house takes 20%. Hey, I have overheads.
@ R. Sherman
If there’s one thing I truly hate about being Kiwi it’s the cleanup after the daily dinner-haka!
Ta-ma-te Ta-ma-te! *stamps feet*
On an overnight talk radio program this a.m. the hosts were discussing this moronic piece of excrement over at HuffPo: “She Looks Black, but Her Politics Are Red: What Mia Love’s Victory Means for the Face of the GOP”
(Mia Love just won her race in Utah’s 4th district for the House of Reps. [I live just a few blocks outside her district.] She’s the daughter of Haitian immigrants, a Mormon, a Republican, and a fan of Ludvig von Mises.)
The hosts proceeded to pick apart the absurdities and falsehoods in the article, as is their wont, but they were utterly missing the point of the article. When analyzing Leftist speech, you never analyze the content, you analyze the purpose of the utterance. Not what they say but why.
The Why is summed up in the neat aphorism that Team Red thinks Team Blue has bad ideas, but Team Blue thinks Team Red are bad people. They desperately need that formulation, both emotionally and strategically. As long as Team Red is 100% evil, then they, the Opposite Team, are 100% good.
As Sowell points out in Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Team Blue is heavily invested in its own smug self-regard and vanity. The cheapest way to obtain such high self-regard is to project all evil onto your putative enemies.
The elections of Tim Scott (first Southern black man ever elected [not appointed] to the Senate) and Mia Love (in deep-red, pasty-white Mormon Utah) threaten that narrative at its very root.
And they can’t have that.
Ergo, Mia Love and Tim Scott aren’t “really black” — they don’t count toward non-evilness points. No credit for you, ya filthy teabagging rednecks. No credit ever.
That’s why he wrote the article: to deprive Mia Love of her blackness, thereby maintaining the narrative. The truthfulness or accuracy or validity of his arguments is irrelevant as long as they server their purpose.
Which, beside propping up all that unearned self-regard, keeps the rest of the black folk from realizing that the filthy teabagging rednecks don’t actually hate them.
And they definitely can’t have that.
Rage is the opiate of the Marxists.
Marxism is the opiate of faculty lounges.
My wife was rather shocked by this story, asking how such people can live with themselves. I explained it’s because they already know they are more moral and working on a higher authority, thus the ends justify the means.
Some are like that.
But then, four percent of us have been born without the burden of caring whether something is right or wrong.
Four percent of us are sociopaths. I reckon the concentration is higher in the circles Gruber runs in.
Much. Higher.
Link fixed.
…thus the ends justify the means.
Or, dicentra’s sociopath theory may have something to it.
The arrogance is breathtaking, whatever
More from Mr Gruber.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/12/in-a-third-video-obamacare-architect-brags-about-exploiting-the-american-voter/
Hope the American voter gets really mad.
Hope.
Ever hear of that expression, “Hopping mad”?
That’s just about to be me, if one more Gruber tape calling–wait, a third tape??? Hang on, I need to find my pogo stick.
‘Apparently the people of the Falkland Islands earned the nickname “Bennies” among members of H.M Forces stationed there, due to their similarity to the simple-minded wool hat fancier from Crossroads.
After some party-pooping officer decided to ban the term “Bennies” so as not to offend the Bennies, the troops started calling them “Stills”. As in “still Bennies”‘.
The GOC responded by banning the term ‘Stills’.
It will come as no surprise to you that from then on the pongoes and the crabs started calling the Islanders the ‘They’res’.
Mags,
Unfortunate indeed! *snork*
And, yes, that programme was very carefully staged if not, in fact, partly or wholly scripted.
The camera angle in that clip which shows the view of the stage from the POV of the knees of the person in the row behind Mr Baldfatangrymanc makes it quite clear just how managed the reality was.
Which point is, of course, highly telling.
wtp,
If true, that story is genuinely horrifying.
Dicentra,
When analyzing Leftist speech, you never analyze the content, you analyze the purpose of the utterance. Not what they say but why
Yes, that.
Especially, as I’ve noticed, that even the slightest query of facts or procedure etc. directed at their own arguments is very often met with a furious denunciation that one is either a mindless, dupe following the herd or a knowing collaborator with the forces of darkness.
or a knowing collaborator with the forces of darkness.
[ Strokes amulet. ]
[ Strokes amulet. ]
That’s actually rather spooky.
I think it must have been the power of the amulet that caused that stray comma to appear between mindless and dupe in my post to Dicentra.
I’m currently rocking a ‘Dr-Strange-and-his-wandering-eye’ number. Gratuitous commas are only the beginning.
Dr-Strange-and-his-wandering-eye’
Sure beats what I’m supposed to be doing right now ; – )
If true, that story is genuinely horrifying
Well it seems at the very least the academic that drove the original conviction overturn “retired” from Northwestern University due to
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/10/31/campus/murder-conviction-of-alstory-simon-overturned-after-doubts-shed-on-protess-investigation/
The McKinney case is a whole other issue I haven’t looked into but on a surface read it seems like our noble professor is/was working to free that convict using dubious means.
As for the private dick employed by the professor…
http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/11/03/when-ethical-causes-are-pursued-by-unethical-means-the-anthony-porter-alstory-simon-mess/#more-24137
Note that our progressive Professor Gruber is happy to admit deceiving the electorate – deliberately, at length and on a grand scale – in order to get his own way
Looks like it’s liars all the way down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/
Looks like it’s liars all the way down.
I’d imagine quite a few people will be experiencing sudden-onset amnesia.
Sort of related to Pelosi / Gruber…
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/13/photo-heres-a-bunch-of-liberals-literally-burying-their-heads-in-sand/
More on things that cannot be said in, around, or about educational environments:
http://www.oregonlive.com/faith/2014/11/devout_christian_claims_portla.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2014/11/steve_duin_blog_evangelizing_f.html
I found it interesting and disturbing that the mentor/supervisor who got her sacked and the local newspaper columnist both attributed her “bigotry” to both her Christian faith and her Russian ethnicity. Apparently this sort of ethnic bigotry is considered reasonable in the hypersensitive public school environment, but asking “do kids really need to learn about this sexual stuff so early?” is a horrific thoughtcrime.
Not to mention that her private asking a question about curriculum and expressing a concern to her mentor that the sex ed curriculum may be too explicit or not age-appropriate has been spun around into some kind of at-risk students’ mental heath emergency of “intolerance” for gay students and “evangelizing” for heterosexuality.
Note well that at no time did this poor woman express an opinion on this matter to a student. Nor did she indicate that she was going to do so. And also note that she, apparently an American citizen, is being held responsible for the policies of Vladimir Putin, because they come from the same ethnic background.
Apparently this sort of ethnic bigotry is considered reasonable in the hypersensitive public school environment, but asking “do kids really need to learn about this sexual stuff so early?” is a horrific thoughtcrime.
They are not against bigotry. They are not against intolerance. They are not sensitive, hyper or otherwise. They are not against evangelization.
They are against their enemies — anyone who resists their attempts to control and oppress the rest of the world.
They use the language of values and standards as a weapon, not as a way to actually establish those standards and values.
Time to stop being astonished at the brazen double standard and start figuring out ways to stop those weapons from being effective.
Step 1: Look at why they say something, not at what they say, and then counter their goals.
More news on Gruber story.
According to this the White House has lied.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created/
The amount of smug anti-Christian dog-piling and moral preening in the comments of that Oregon articles saddens me. I’m not Christian, but I grow very tired of people talking about them flippantly as if they’re all moral and intellectual lepers from a by-gone era. Further, the level of righteous indignation in the comments suggests to me that this woman must have been openly scolding gay and lesbian students for their sexuality while insisting that the earth is 6000 years old!. She did not do this, of course.
How quickly society has moved into the “21st century” of enlightened tolerance and non-judgmental behaviour.
“Time to stop being astonished at the brazen double standard and start figuring out ways to stop those weapons from being effective.”
I’d be glad to hear more suggestions on how to do this, since they really don’t seem to care that people notice their hypocrisy. The idea seems to be “well but some hypocrisy is justified because the opponents are worse, and justified hypocrisy isn’t hypocrisy.”
But yes, they obviously “evangelize” for a very specific view of sexuality all the time, and aren’t opposed to the idea of bossing people around on personal subjects. They just want to be sure they are the ones doing it. The maneuvers they use to manipulate are often quite obvious. Like all the talk of suicide is emotional blackmail plain and simple–if there’s a suicide crisis among the youth of the nation, it has more to do with general anomie and nihilism in the culture, especially alienation caused by divorce, than anything specific to being gay. But the primary way they have made it a thought crime to question sex ed or gender theory or anything like that is by saying “but the kids will kill themselves!” You can show charts and stats disproving the hypothesis, and they just double down. Dumb people are scared by the suicide talk so they go with the ones who are “preventing suicide.” What then?
What then?
They’ve put the machinery in place. They’ve got a fuzzbox and they’re gonna use it. It’s all about psychodrama, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
For another example, just look at the reports from employment tribunals in the UK. They’re all about misfits suing the public sector, or people pretending to be misfits suing companies in the financial services industry. They’re the only organisations who have the money to pay the compensation.
… this smug jaggoff Gruber admitting that an already wildly unpopular… “signature” piece of Obama legislation was written precisely to fool them, to take advantage of their lack of political sophistication, and [touting] an intentional lack of transparency as a stroke of policy genius…
Which “them” is Gruber talking about. Certainly not those who saw through Obamstrosity Care from the git go, or Republican congresscritters, who voted against it.
Which means Gruber isn’t calling voters in general stupid, just the progressive ones.
‘A high school in Colorado Springs bans students from meeting outside class for prayer and fellowship.’
‘A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshippers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty.’
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392665/one-nation-under-godlessness-michelle-malkin
After three years (with no complaints) this is banned.
I’d be really grateful if someone could explain the ‘legal’ justification, which cites “the separation of church and state,” and how it stands up in this case.
Is the ‘problem’ not the worship itself, but their discussion of current issues through a Christian perspective?
Oh, I’m really sorry – must have done something wrong – the link hasn’t worked. Apologies.
Fixed. I don’t think Typepad auto-links the mobile version of a URL.
Many thanks David!
Left out http:// by mistake.
I am an idiot.
Sorry for the extra hassle.
No problem. At least it wasn’t runaway italics. That really chafes my cheeks.
Wouldn’t want to do that!
I’m using a phone (not a particularly smart one) not a computer, so the opportunities for ‘text styling’ are severely limited.
I can only italicise in my dreams.
this programme was … so utterly and spectacularly dishonest that it resulted in the basest form of propaganda I think I have ever seen on air.
The IEA’s Ryan Bourne pokes through some of the programme’s many errors and distortions, in two parts, here and here.
“No problem. At least it wasn’t runaway italics. That really chafes my cheeks”
Hahaha. Plonkers who don’t understand HTML! Eejits all of ’em.
Scientist’s shirt clearly tells women that they are only good for display purposes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/11/13/why-everyone-is-freaking-out-about-what-shirt-a-scientist-wore/
From the article
Shirts covered in half-naked women should not be worn in the workplace, because it sends a clear message to the women around you — their bodies are really just there for display.
Aha, but what if your work place is Hooters?
This is one of those casual assumptions that drives me mad. Scantily clad woman on a shirt/poster/television equals YOU ARE ONLY GOOD FOR DISPLAY. That’s just the way it is, OK!. That’s the message it sends. Because I said so. If you disagree, you are a sexist and probably a misogynist.
For what it’s worth I think the guy has poor taste. But what’s worse is the amount of hand-wringing and posturing over a gaudy shirt.
“Runaway italics”?
Was that me? In which case, my apologies, landlord.
My wife’s damson vodka )of which there is plenty( makes for many poor keystrokes.
Yeah, I know.
*places alms in penitence jar and backs away expecting sword descending whilst whimpering “I’m not the little fish”*
hand-wringing and posturing over a gaudy shirt
I think Instapundit summed it up well:
I also like the term “social justice troll.” Captures the dynamic, I think.
places alms in penitence jar and backs away expecting sword descending whilst whimpering “I’m not the little fish”
Luckily, I’m infinitely corruptible. Hey, I could get used to my new tough nut image. I need tattoos and a leather jacket.
By the way, the spam filter is being a bit twitchy again. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll prise them free.
Remember Dear Abbey chastising Einstein to comb his hair? Well, neither do I, but still.
I think I had a comment vanish, but it might not have been important. Maybe you can read it first before ushering it through.
That said.
I don’t like that dude’s shirt either. I don’t like the images of sci-fi bra-buster, six-pack abs, impossibly hot babes.
If one of the guys at the IT place where I work had worn such a thing, I’d be peeved. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the workplace.
But I also wouldn’t join an Internet wilding to humiliate the guy on the greatest day of his life. I wouldn’t insist that it’s what’s keeping women out of STEM. If he’s an Aspie (like most techies), he’s probably clueless about how such a shirt might affect a female co-worker. He has zero intent to offend, intimidate, or dehumanize.
If I said anything at all, I’d say it to him, in private, to avoid humiliation and suchlike.
Those feminists who made him cry on camera are bullies and sadists, not champions of women in science.
Push back twice as hard.
I think I had a comment vanish, but it might not have been important. Maybe you can read it first before ushering it through.
Dicentra, there’s nothing in the spam filter. Am mystified. Try posting it again?
I don’t like that dude’s shirt either. I don’t like the images of sci-fi bra-buster, six-pack abs, impossibly hot babes.
I’ve yet to see this point raised anywhere yet, but it seems to me to be highly likely that the shirt was actually a PR misfire on the part of ESA’s marketing department.
An organisation willing to shell out significant cash on this short film with Aidan ‘Littlefinger’ Gillen is clearly one that is very image conscious.
Taylor’s death metal style is very clearly his own obviously, but I don’t believe for a minute that ESA would have let him loose in front of a camera dressed as he was and showing his tattoos off unless they were actively trying to send a message – the message being “Scientists aren’t boring or wimpy. Look – this dude’s a top scientist and he’s got death metal tattoos and a Grant Morrison ‘Invisibles’ style Hawaiian shirt on – he just must be cool!”
They thought it would be appealing to young people to make them go into the sciences.
How were they to know that it’d get completely trashed by the poisonous barking of their Moral Superiors?
While we’re on the topic of Taylor’s sartorial choices, I notice that the usual suspects have managed to capitalise on the inevitable backlash they’ve had dished out to them as further “evidence” that life for middle class women in Western first world countries is one long continuous and terrifying ordeal on a par with life for women in the Congo.
For instance, Jezebel.com has a report titled Woman Gets Death Threats for Tweeting About Disliking A Dude’s Shirt.
When you scroll, down, you discover that what the writers have described as ‘death threats’ in the title turn out to be absolutely nothing of the sort.
I mean how are these – even the second one – even remotely credible as death threats?:
LOL so wearing a shirt with good looking women = women abuse? You’re an absolute MORON. Jump off a cliff. Please.
Please kill yourself
it is just a shirt, mi lady.
These people are just so utterly odious, I wish people would stop paying attention to their bleating and get on with their day.
When you scroll, down, you discover that what the writers have described as ‘death threats’ in the title turn out to be absolutely nothing of the sort.
Yes, but Jezebel doesn’t exist to impart either credible arguments or accurate information, or indeed a sense of proportion. It doesn’t exactly have a great track record on that front. It exists to bolster and propagate a worldview that’s pretentious, unrealistic and perpetually unhappy. The “poisonous barking” you mentioned. Apparently, that’s very in now.
For instance, when Glenn ‘Instapundit’ Reynolds criticised the hyperbolical indignation and reactiveness of the Atlantic’s Rose Eveleth, he was immediately and falsely accused of “doxing” Ms Eveleth and “putting women in fear for their safety.” So an article about practised irrationalism and dishonesty was met with more practised irrationalism and dishonesty. And the woman most responsible for distorting what actually happened and circulating actionable lies was Janet Stemwedel, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. She specialises in ethics.
the message being “Scientists aren’t boring or wimpy. Look – this dude’s a top scientist and he’s got death metal tattoos and a Grant Morrison ‘Invisibles’ style Hawaiian shirt on – he just must be cool!”
And that message was immediately shot to hell when he broke down and cried over the criticism.
In a way I had a parallel experience last year. I had been wearing a tie to work every Tuesday (not a common thing for engineers to do anymore), taking a picture of it and posting it on Facebook. Well my edgy (female) cousin thought it would be cute for Christmas to send me one of those tacky painted ties with a quite buxom broad in all her glory painted on it. I of course wore it, took a picture, posted it on FB, and then being cursed with a couple ounces of common sense, wore a pull-over sweater over it. Needless to say, the comments from my female friends were quite interesting. In fact, think I just might repost…
Dicentra, there’s nothing in the spam filter. Am mystified. Try posting it again?
Come to think of it, I prolly hit Preview, then clicked away from the page without actually posting.
Meh. Not worth a rewrite. Sometimes it’s like that.