Elsewhere (205)
Kevin D Williamson on work and earnings:
The median salary for a women’s-studies professor is more than a hundred grand a year. The average hourly earnings for a graduate with a women’s-studies degree? Eleven bucks an hour, well less than you’d make working the car wash at a Buc-ee’s convenience store.
Marlo Safi on unknown history:
US history is not a staple course for history majors at most top universities, according to a new report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni… Less than 20 percent of surveyed students could accurately identify in a multiple choice survey what the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was, and one-third of college graduates were unaware that FDR introduced the New Deal.
Not entirely unrelated, Peter Wood on the fashionable conformity of student life:
Excluding people from a debate because you disagree with their views is an odd conceit, but odder still is that the practice has rapidly gained credibility on both sides of the Atlantic as morally valid.
Jonathan Haidt on the anti-rational rhetoric of “social justice” activism:
There are many beliefs [on the “social justice” left] that are so central, so foundational, that when you try to argue against them, we see students saying that this would “invalidate” their “existence.” So if you were to try to argue that some cause of prejudice or racism was not real, or that disparities by race or gender had other causes, some would take this as an existential threat, an existential attack. You would be trying to “invalidate” their “existence,” which is “an act of violence.” So your very efforts to persuade with reason are, they say, “violence.”
And Paul Sperry spots an upscale, ‘progressive’ middle school that’s probably best avoided:
The programme, these parents say, deliberately instils in white children a strong sense of guilt about their race. Some kids come home in tears, saying, “I’m a bad person.” Parents, moreover, say the classroom segregation only breeds resentment. Younger children, for instance, feel left out when the “kids of colour” come back to the main classroom munching on cupcakes they were given in their “affinity group.” The divisive programme is run by Anshu Wahi, a long-time “social justice” activist who’s held the title of “director of diversity” at Bank Street since 2013. She referred questions to the school’s communications office, which did not respond to requests for comment.
Not being overly fascinated by a person’s pigmentation is, says Ms Wahi, a “tool of Whiteness,” one that perpetuates “oppression.” Apparently, the way to get past small differences in physiology is to continually fixate on small differences in physiology – at least, according to our “social justice” educator, whose status and pay cheque – and whose opportunities to indulge in a little psychological sadism – very much depend on the children in her care being fixated by such things.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
And in the Pulse shootings (well, in a lot of mass shooting events), the cops were happy to wait outside for hours and let victims bleed out.
Not buying that leftist narrative for a minute. It’s another BS distraction from the motive of the killer, and his wife accomplice (gee, what media hole did she disappear into?), themselves. The cops did as good of a job as they were trained and capable of doing. I can criticize their lack of perfection in execution, but try getting all hands on deck at 2:30 in the morning to address a terrorist operation and see how well you do.
Please to be excusing me, I have been in your country only a very short distance now and am having many not understandings of new language.
Please to making undestandings of this very scientific and academical reading please.
In advance I am saying thank you very many.
Don’t miss Godfrey’s pinned Tweet: “I’m not sure calling people racist is working anymore. We’re gonna need a bigger slur”
Must see the accompanying photo for the full effect.
Please to making undestandings of this very scientific and academical reading please.
Ms Hammers (awesome name btw) is an amateur. Using big words and neologisms only makes you look like a try-hard.
The real masters take ordinary words and form a cocktail that is intoxicating, because you feel you should know what they mean if only you weren’t so stupid.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/reseafrilite.47.2.10?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
“Slow.”
Oh, endless new realms of feminist angst:

Because we mustn’t run out of things to be neurotic about, and oppressed by, and then ostentatiously overcome.
“and made a point of defecating on his desk.”
Class.
‘Why are the results of science considered more reliable than those from other forms of human enquiry, like poetry or philosophy?’
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html
Why are the results of science considered more reliable than those from other forms of human enquiry, like poetry or philosophy?
I’m not quite sure what point Dr Blachowicz, our professor of philosophy, is trying to make. Beyond hinting at some disgruntlement that, say, chemists and physicists are generally regarded as of more practical use than poets or philosophers.
In entirely unrelated news, a spacecraft launched from Earth has spent five years crossing almost three billion kilometres of space, at speeds of up to a quarter of a million kilometres per hour, and has just arrived in orbit around the planet Jupiter, exactly as predicted. So far as I can tell, it did not get there by means of poetry.
In entirely unrelated news…
Thank God no one was wearing an offensive shirt. They’ve obviously learned their lesson. I wonder if Matt Taylor spent the night curled into a foetal position in the basement with PTSD memmories of his night in the spotlight.
memmories or Mammaries?
I’m not quite sure what point Dr Blachowicz, our professor of philosophy, is trying to make. Beyond hinting at some disgruntlement that, say, chemists and physicists are generally regarded as of more practical use than poets or philosophers.
AFAICT, there is no point to modern philosophy. Various discussions that I have had with such people circle a vague idea but are abandoned any time you get within reach of a point. Questioning their assumptions simply leads to infinite hair splitting and ultimately a tiring argument. Kind of how Hillary deals with her various scandals. Drag things out until ultimately no one cares or even remembers the original issue. It’s what leftists “do”, for lack of a better word.
AFAICT, there is no point to modern philosophy
Well, in this instance, I’m still not sure what the point is, besides a note of status envy on the part of the author. Blachowicz asks, “How is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms [i.e., poetry and philosophy]?” But the scientific method entails observing the world, quantifying aspects of it, formulating rules and making predictions. If, among other things, those predictions hold up repeatedly, the science is thought reliable, at least until more is known. But poets and philosophers don’t often deal with quantified variables, or make predictions about spacecraft trajectories, or drug efficacy, or much of anything. Does philosophy have “results” in anything like the same sense? Is poetry falsifiable?
The word “reliable” seems… odd.
Oh, endless new realms of feminist angst:
Stretch mark positivity. OK, yeah, sure, and no, almost everyone do not get them. If anyone had any lingering doubts about these peoples tenuous grasp of sanity, I give you another fine MS-Paint cartoon about tricotillomania and dermatillomania, evidently a major problem amongst their lot.
No.
I guess my technique of a DA sander is right out. Read the rest as the kids say.
Yes, but much like the potentially bottomless exploration “courage” in the piece, “reliable” can be taken apart endlessly and thus the philosopher wins. These philosophers are quite enamoured with themselves and thus the world and anything in it is an opportunity for them to put “philosophy”, and thus themselves, at the center of all knowledge. I’ve had this argument with one such narcissist. It basically boiled down to “philosophy is the root of all knowledge”. Which is an arguable point to some extent, but the process of the discussion and how it moved, the ego of the philosopher was really the driving factor of the succeeding discussions.
memmories or Mammaries?
Yes, I appear to have Dunning-Kruger’d myself. Curse my broken, internal spell-checker!
The urge to pull at your hair or pick at your skin – does this sound familiar to you or anyone you know?
Given the endless articles and cartoons of this type, published almost daily, on everything from self-harm to borderline personality disorder, it does seem that the readership of Everyday Feminism is largely made up of people with quite serious mental health issues.
“reliable” can be taken apart endlessly
Is that that famous ‘deconstructing’ or ‘unpacking’ I keep hearing about? Seems to be ‘problematic’ and ‘unsustainable’ and ‘unprecedented’, not to mention not ‘awareness-raising’ enough. BINGO!
Oh, and WTP, aren’t these people better called ‘philosophists‘?
The urge to pull at your hair or pick at your skin – does this sound familiar to you or anyone you know?
“Next week, an article for readers who spend their evenings eating tissues by the fistful and then being sick behind the sofa.” #GirlPower
#GirlPower
Snort.
…”Everyday Feminism” is largely made up of people with quite serious mental health issues.
Nonsense, it is completely made up of people with extremely serious mental health issues as every page links to more pages with some psychopathology.
Emotional warfare and body terrorism. QED.
On the indoctrination of high school students.
Yet in science, just as in defining a concept like courage, ad hoc exceptions are sometimes exactly what are needed. While Galileo’s law prescribes that the trajectory of a projectile like a cannonball follows a parabolic path, the true path deviates from a parabola, mostly because of air resistance. That is, a second, separate causal element must be accounted for. And so we add the ad hoc exception “except when resisted by air.”
I gave up at that point, because that is not an ad hoc exception, as a moment’s pause for thought would have made obvious. And whilst certain philosophical lines of enquiry might resemble the scientific method it doesn’t make them equivalent; on the other hand it could be argued that proper hard science is practical epistemology and therefore philosophical.
Oh, and WTP, aren’t these people better called ‘philosophists’?
Yep. That’s what I’ve been calling them generally. But then the argument descends into claims that sophistry is a philosophy. Which it is. By being an anti-philosophy. See, it never ends. Circle in a spiral. Windmills and all that.
The urge to pull at your hair or pick at your skin – does this sound familiar to you or anyone you know?
Thought that one deserved a post of its own.
“Power to the People”
Relevant
Please to be excusing me, I have been in your country only a very short distance now and am having many not understandings of new language.
It is all very simple. Follow these rules:
1. Make random singular nouns into plurals. The nouns may be abstract or concrete, as long as they’re supposed to be singular in context. (“Embodiments”, “sophistries”, “sofas”, whatever.)
2. Borrow scientific terminology, but be sure you’re not using it in boring scientific ways like those boring old scientists. Call your theory a “project” instead. Call your research question a “theory”. An idea should become an “economy”. The less sense it all makes, the better. (Be sure to apply Rule 1 with vigor here.)
3. Make any significant nouns into verbs instead. “Privilege” is a verb. So is “gender”. For bonus points, turn them into nouns again via gerunding, e.g. “genderings”.
4. Wherever you see that a word contains another word (whether this be a true portmanteau word, a word with a prefix, or a word that accidentally looks like another word), insert an inappropriate punctuation mark at the word or pseudo-word boundary. The slash is classic (“the/rapist”), but you can get more modern, sassier effects by using other punctuation (“punc(h)uation”, “sophis::try”, “idea%lize”, etc.) Let your imagination be your guide.
To regain the English from academese, simply reverse these rules. Remove internal punctuation from words, translate “project” back into “theory”, make most of the plural nouns singular, and so on. Even if you do this strictly mechanically and with violent inattention to the meaning (if present and divinable), you’ll almost certainly get something more comprehensible out the end.
A mathematician requires pencil, paper, eraser, and a wastebasket. A philosopher dispenses with the eraser and the wastebasket.
In entirely unrelated news, a spacecraft launched from Earth has spent five years crossing almost three billion kilometres of space, at speeds of up to a quarter of a million kilometres per hour, and has just arrived in orbit around the planet Jupiter, exactly as predicted. So far as I can tell, it did not get there by means of poetry.
And you’d be completely wrong. The probe’s Ionic Pentameter Drive is powered by hyper-speed recitations of Alan Ginsberg’s “Howl”.
Science is the cooking and eating of the dinner, philosophy is the conversation during and after. Religion is the brandy and cigars at the end.
an important appointment notification was never sent, a set of records was accidentally deleted, and a set of x-rays was simply lost, never to be found. None of which was regarded by the staff as particularly unusual or embarrassing.
That. My experience of NHS hospitals in a nutshell. Good surgeon, crap admin.
And because the notion of customer service is apparently so alien, the result was of being made to feel like an inconvenience, as if we should be grateful for any attention at all, however inept, because they’re doing us a favour
One or two NHS receptionists seem to have mastered the art of keeping you waiting just long enough for you to know that they’re in charge of the situation.
I dare say some of them are getting a hard time both from stressed doctors and from patients tired of being patronised & bossed around – but the fact remains that the interaction is occasionally initiated in a passive aggressive way.
And there’s usually a poster saying “we will not tolerate violence towards our staff”. The possibility you could be refused treatment if you’re not really, really polite is the icing on the cake.
Obviously I’m not bitter about this 🙂 Anyway, sounds as though you met this lady.
And there’s usually a poster saying “we will not tolerate violence towards our staff”.
Yes. On arrival I was slightly surprised by the poster. It’s one of the first things you see and you get plenty of time to stare at it. It doesn’t exactly buoy your expectations. But after a glance around, it dawned on me that these places do have a high concentration of the, um, less gifted population. I’m sure dealing with people in pain – and especially morons in pain – can get a bit wearing, which is partly why I was determined to be more agreeable than strictly necessary. But the whole admin system just seemed demoralised, unreliable and hopelessly inefficient – there was a jarring lack of initiative. And when things went wrong, the response by staff suggested this wasn’t at all unusual or noteworthy, or deserving of apology.
In contrast, a while ago I visited my father-in-law at a private hospital and the atmosphere was strikingly different – attentive and friendly staff, a feeling that you mattered, and no vital paperwork or x-rays got lost. It’s not just a matter of a nicer building or private rooms, it’s an ethos. And – perhaps unsurprisingly, given the difference in clientele – I didn’t see any posters warning that violence towards staff wouldn’t be tolerated.
John D quotes a sophist:
‘Why are the results of science considered more reliable than those from other forms of human enquiry, like poetry or philosophy?’
During this season’s NBA (Basketball) broadcasts in my area, an ad extolling the beauty of the videos, photos, and graphics producible on an Apple iPad came out. The voice-over was of some arts-professorial-type, going on about truth and beauty, who at some point declaims that “art is greater than mere engineering and science” (or was it “and medicine”?) Anyway, I choked on my chips at that remark.
Here’s a guy using and admiring the product of one of the most advanced bits of tech on the planet, the end result of hundreds of years of science and math, thousands if not millions of engineers, and an infrastructure and logistics scheme spanning the globe and costing many billions of dollars. It’s being advertised to the masses via ANOTHER similar bit of tech. And what does he say?
It’s all “Mere engineering.”
And so many folks nod their heads at the wisdom…
jaed’s suggestion for editors:
“violent inattention to the meaning”
I love it. I’m stealing it.
Morbid curiosity (I originally just wrote “curiosity” but that would have been a lie.) finally drew me to read Prof. B’s essay.
I now have an existence proof that one can make an adequate living, or at least be published in the NY press, with no more than the intellectual heft to be expected of a 16-year old.
What a mishmash. The bloke simply has no serious understanding of the historical science examples he mentions. Hell, he doesn’t even understand what “ad hoc” means – pretty amusing in an essay largely about meaning.
An artist opines.
Theodore Dalrymple ponders Brexit:
Worth reading in full.
Worth reading in full.
Indeed.