Redskins and Paleface
Lifted from the comments:
A nasty non-leftwing man said that we can’t handle unflattering non-leftwing ideas or even debate rationally. So we smeared paint all over ourselves and screamed so that no-one could hear what the nasty man said. Then we walked out, giving everyone else the finger and leaving a mess for the janitors. Because we care so very much about everything.
Every prospective employer should be noting these faces and names very carefully..
You see, they’re so inclusive, so in favour of diversity, that anyone who disagrees with them about anything isn’t allowed to speak.
Every prospective employer should be noting these faces and names very carefully.
Quite. From what I can make out, most of the protestors were from the departments of Women’s Studies and various ethnic grievance studies, and – wait for it – the School of Communication. Which is to say, departments that tend to attract students with lower SAT scores than, say, students of physics and engineering.
Not sure there will ever be employers…
Audio of the speech, and its interruptions, can be heard here.
most of the protestors were from the departments of Women’s Studies and various ethnic grievance studies
As professor Saad pointed out in the video you linked to here the other day, when the ratio of Democrat- to Republican-leaning staff ranges from a 5 to 1 average to a 44 to 1 in Sociology then not only do you have a serious problem with political bias, but you make such histrionics almost inevitable.
When so-called “vanilla” Democrat-voting liberal staff come to represent the views of those closest to the centre and therefore furthest to the right*, the ‘central’ position in the department then becomes something like coffee-shop Marxism (“Well naturally, Reginald, the only solution to making Starbucks available to all is the dictatorship of the proletariat – another muffin?”).
That in turn allows an awful lot of scope for the Melissa Clicks and Robert Weidesof the Academic world to flourish under the entirely mistaken misapprehension that they are breaking fresh new ground to discover startling new vistas where activism and intellectual endeavour meet.
Instead of, you know, just making a damn mess.
* I would love to find an interview with whoever that 1 in 44 is … I very much imagine that they have survived so long where they are that whenever any student hears their ideas, they probably think they are being ironic as nobody believes a sociologist could actually really believe such things.
“He’s not even American.”
#diversity #inclusion
I would love to find an interview with whoever that 1 in 44 is.
For a fair idea, you could watch Evan Coyne Maloney’s documentary Indoctrinate U – full video here, my review here. The opening comments by Professor David Clemens convey some of the surrealism. As does the section on psychology professor Laura Freberg, who recounts being told, “We never would have hired you if we’d known you were a Republican.” Freberg’s students told her they’d known she was a “closet Republican” precisely because she didn’t use the classroom to air her political views.
And remember, the film was released in 2008. I can’t say the situation has improved since then.
“He’s not even American.” #diversity #inclusion
Bingo. But I suppose that’s what happens if you make categorising people a political fetish, the yardstick of virtue or sin. You can always think of reasons why someone you don’t want to listen to isn’t the right colour, or isn’t black enough or left enough, or gay enough, or whatever.
Nice paraphrase David, but perhaps to capture the full flavour of the outburst you might have included the phrase;
“I’ll thcream and thcream ’till I’m thick”
Which is to say, departments that tend to attract students with lower SAT scores than, say, students of physics and engineering.
I may have noted this before, but my son attends a STEM university about 1.5 hours south of Mizzou. During the recent kerfuffle in Columbia, one of his professors noted the complete absence of racially charged unrest on own their campus. Quoth and black upper classman, “We’re engineers; we don’t have time for that shit.”
Progressive leftwing students disrupt speech titled “How the Progressive Left is Destroying American Education”…
“We’re engineers; we don’t have time for that shit.”
Student activism, which generally means leftist activism, does tend to be the pastime of chippy mediocrities who struggle with maths.
Did the protestors explain what the red paint was all about?
Did the protestors explain what the red paint was all about?
Not that I’ve seen or heard, no. Maybe it was meant to be blood, which is still a bit random and not obviously related to the topic of the talk. Unless, of course, the protestors hoped to imply that listening to Milo, which they’d gone out of their way to do, was exactly being smashed in the face with a hammer. Or something.
Did the protestors explain what the red paint was all about?
I read somewhere that the red paint was supposed to represent menses, inasmuch as gay males–of which Milo is one–are supposed to be repelled by the inner working of female reproduction.
(Don’t blame me. I just report this stuff.)
Milo! Milo! Milo! Milo!
“What we stand for is inclusion and diversity…”
Unless you have a different opinion than us, in which case DIE YOU PIG!
Sad to say, the brainwashing of this foolish girl is complete. She is clueless in her certitude.
the red paint was supposed to represent menses
[ Retires to fainting couch. ]
[ Retires to fainting couch. ]
I’d offer you a glass of wine, but all I have is a perky little Grenache.
The Holocaust was “white on white crime”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/05/the-holocaust-as-white-on-white-crime-and-other-signs-of-intellectual-decay/
I like the description “screaming campus garbage babies.”
Student activism, which generally means leftist activism, does tend to be the pastime of chippy mediocrities who struggle with maths.
Quite. Just as when I hear anyone wibble on about the importance of ‘intersectionality’ my first thought is of the intersection of flora and fauna.
Let’s all be different, just like me!
It will be interesting to watch the Rutgers admin’s response to the false claims of the “protesters” – will there be discipline, or are these folks too black/red/yellow/whatever to punish?
Privilege, indeed.
gay males…are supposed to be repelled by the inner working of female reproduction
Well, isn’t *everyone*?
However, their chants were drowned out by Milo’s supporters, who fought back with their own chant: “TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP.
The Age of the Shitlords is approaching.
gay males…are supposed to be repelled by the inner working of female reproduction
Well, isn’t *everyone*?
Including the affected females?
Why, yes. Yes we are.
The Age of the Shitlords is approaching.
Based on what I’ve seen in numerous Twitter exchanges, the term shitlord now seems to apply to just about anyone, any male at least, who doesn’t defer to “social justice” activism – except, of course, members of certain, dare I say problematic, Designated Victim Groups – bearded Muhammadans, etc., for whom exemptions seem to apply. Which makes me wonder how the “social justice” activists relate to any family members – uncles, grandpas – who dare to diverge from The One True Path.
Why, yes. Yes we are.
Just sayin’.
Just sayin’.
Oh, well played, madam.
Which makes me wonder how the “social justice” activists relate to any family members – uncles, grandpas – who dare to diverge from The One True Path.
I proudly bear the moniker of ‘Uncle Shitlord’. On a slightly more serious note, I think part of the rise of Donald Trump is that he just pisses off all the right people.
I am genuinely curious as to why smearing fake menstrual blood over one’s face and screaming like a banshee is any sort of coherent protest? As opposed to utter lunacy.
Does anyone know?
All that came to my mind were the final scenes of Sissy Spacek in “Carrie” – where, mad eyes bulging out of her blood-soaked face, she went on an unhinged rampage of student destruction.
..all I have is a perky little Grenache.
That will do nicely, dear boy. Share a bottle?
Anna — I am in awe. That is so apt and so clever.
Which makes me wonder how the “social justice” activists relate to any family members – uncles, grandpas – who dare to diverge from The One True Path.
Probably like carbon based ATMs.
Milo is like a younger, sassier, magnificently-coiffed version of Obi Wan Kenobi.
They try to strike him down, and he just becomes more fabulous than you can possibly imagine.
I don’t think the snowflakes themselves can explain the red paint, just as they likely cannot explain what they are protesting to begin with, it is the theatre of the unhinged.
Reason no longer applies.
I think this has become required behavior on campus and one’s lack of regular participation runs the risk of one becoming the target. One better be seen in flagrante delicto lest the mob becomes suspicious.
Dreary.
Here’s a student “critique” of Milo’s appearance at Rutgers. Apparently, Mr Yiannopoulos is “racist, homophobic and entirely misogynistic” and on a par with “an active KKK member,” and the protestors’ juvenile grandstanding and vandalism is actually “street justice.”
“That, my friends, is the real world.”
Oh, Jonathan. Never tempt karma like that. You just might find the REAL real world bonking you on your pointy little head.
I read somewhere the other day that this now boils down to a simple phrase:
Real v Feel
When I were a lad in the 60s, the engineers did “have time for that shit”. The lefties occupied our university senate building, the engineers chucked them out.
I see Steve has been in. He may not have spotted this yet; via Vox Day:
http://i0.wp.com/kukuruyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/safe-space-1.png?fit=1240%2C563
“Which makes me wonder how the ‘social justice’ activists relate to any family members – uncles, grandpas – who dare to diverge from The One True Path.”
In my personal experience, very very badly.
PST, that is a damn shame.
I am fortunate to have unofficial grandchildren who come to me from time to time to sort out where they want to stand on these sorts of issues.
It began about six or seven years ago when their bulldust detectors began to twitch during Global Warming lessons at school. I gave them enough to start researching and making up their own minds.
The experience had the unfortunate side-effect of leaving them deeply suspicious of their teachers, but then the teachers deserved it.
Apparently, Mr Yiannopoulos is “racist, homophobic and entirely misogynistic”
I’m sure that will come as something of a surprise to the fabulously gay Milo, who is, if his Twitter feed is to be believed, rather fond of sleeping with well-endowed black guys. #Realityfail #Logicfail
#Realityfail #Logicfail
It’s the Laurie Penny school of rhetoric, in which unsupported accusations and wild hyperbole make a thing true. And the author of that cognitive train wreck, Jonathan Finnerty, is a student of philosophy.
Darn. I thought Milo’s supporters were suggesting the dimtwitted protesters “jump.” Ah, another hope dashed.
Young Jonathan got trounced by the commenters (Shut up, Dictionaries) on his twaffling article. I’m just slightly appalled he felt the need to drag in a David Bowie lyric. Was that supposed to make the reader get all feely?
And the author of that cognitive train wreck, Jonathan Finnerty, is a student of philosophy.
Nothing surprising about that, if you’ve talked to many so-called philosphy instructors. They are little more, make that no more, than sophists for socialism. Exceptions exist, yes. Not many, though.
The job of an ethicist is to come up with rationalizations for things normal people find unethical.
sophists for socialism
I think my favourite example is still Dr Nina Power, a senior philosophy lecturer at Roehampton University, a Marxist, and naturally a Guardian contributor. Dr Power told readers of The Philosophers’ Magazine that “everyone has the potential to understand everything” and that equality of intelligence is “something to be presupposed” because – and here’s the clever bit, just because – “everyone is equally intelligent.” Despite, or possibly because of, her ability to ignore tens of millions of IQ tests to the contrary, Dr Power is very much the kind of philosopher currently in favour.
The mental prowess of our Philosopher Queen was particularly evident when she insisted that lecturers needn’t be competent in any conventional sense or be familiar with the subject they’re employed to teach, and instead should learn alongside pupils in “shared ignorance.” And she did all this while simultaneously denouncing cuts in public subsidy to arts and humanities departments and to so-called educators much like herself.
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but a search for Nina Power or “equality of intelligence” at TPM online is returning bumpkis. I seem to recall the piece, however. And yet I’m really not surprised by this.
… she insisted that lecturers needn’t be competent in any conventional sense … and instead should learn alongside pupils in “shared ignorance”.
Well, it sounds like she has plenty to share
WTP: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=tpm&id=tpm_2010_0050_0090_0091
Well, it sounds like she has plenty to share
Dr Power is quite a character. Her blathering implies a great deal that she takes care not to state explicitly. She seems to imagine that precocity cannot be innate, that the unequal distribution of intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics and heredity, and that cleverness is therefore to be subject to social correction and redistribution by people like her. But then stating these things clearly might make her sound foolish and invite corrections from people who actually know something about the subjects on which she pontificates.
. . . But then stating these things clearly might make her sound foolish . . .
. . . might make her sound foolish?!?!?!
In related, or at least also Uni news, a further demonstration of the axiom of Once you’ve dug yourself into a hole, Stop Digging!!!!
. . and other related headlines . . .
might make her sound foolish?!?!?!
Well, yes, quite. But stating her assumptions clearly would risk exposing the feebleness of her arguments to a larger, less politically uniform audience. An audience that might notice all those unearned conclusions because it doesn’t think those are the conclusions that one ought to arrive at regardless of the facts.