Elsewhere (222)
Sohrab Ahmari on the narrowness and tedium of leftist cultural criticism:
Culture is the whole constellation of practices, norms and institutions that help people think through big questions — about truth, beauty and the good… The problem with identitarianism is that it… reduces all these mysteries — the things great art and culture have grappled with for millennia — into grievance and propaganda… Open up your social-media newsfeed, or go to nearly any cultural criticism website, and chances are you’ll spot the new philistinism right away: “Did you know that yoga is cultural appropriation?” “Your sushi restaurant is actually part of a structure of colonial oppression!” “Why the new Spider-Man movie is terrible for trans people!” And on and on. For millions of people, all thinking about culture is summed in the question: Does this affirm the feelings of the “oppressed” or not? Nothing higher, nothing transcendent or universal.
See also the first item here. And the first item here.
Jonathan Haidt shares a vision of the near future:
The [on-campus] microaggression programme teaches students the exact opposite of ancient wisdom. Microaggression training is — by definition — instruction in how to detect ever smaller specks in your neighbour’s eye… It’s bad enough to make the most fragile and anxious students quicker to take offence and more self-certain and self-righteous. But… what will happen to a democracy as students graduate from college and demand that microaggression training be implemented in their workplaces? If you think American democracy is polarised and dysfunctional in 2016, just wait until the baby boomers have aged out of leadership positions and the country is run by a millennial elite trained at our top schools, which immersed them in a microaggression programme for four years.
Damon Linker on the crab-bucket world of intersectional identity politics:
It should be obvious that this brand of politics is profoundly poisonous. Instead of seeking to level an unjust hierarchy, mitigate its worst abuses, and foster cross-group solidarity, intersectionality merely flips the hierarchy on its head, placing the least “privileged” in the most powerful position and requiring everyone else to clamour for relative advantage in the new upside-down ranking. Those who come out on top in the struggle win their own counter-status, earning the special privilege of getting to demand that those lower in the pecking order “check their privilege.” This is a sure-fire spur to division, dissension, and resentment.
Heather Mac Donald on racism, race hustling and things you mustn’t notice:
The notion that the dominant or exclusive racism in America today is white anti-black racism is absurd. […] The vast bulk of interracial violence is committed by black people. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites, and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimisation Survey… Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population.
And Tyler Cowen on the different types of rich person:
The richest Americans are much less likely to have inherited their wealth than their counterparts in many supposedly more egalitarian countries. They’re not remarkably rich in degrees from elite universities. Rich Democrats have more social connections than rich Republicans. These are some surprising insights from a new study of the very wealthy… based on data on 18,245 individuals with a net worth of $30 million or more. The study portrays high-net-worth individuals as a more idiosyncratic and diverse group than reductionist clichés about “the 1 percent” might suggest… For all the talk of Sweden and Austria as relatively egalitarian societies, they are also the countries where the greatest proportion of high-net-worth individuals inherited their wealth: 43.8 percent and 49.6 percent, respectively. In the U.S., inherited wealth accounts for only 12.6 percent of the very wealthy individuals in the study’s sample.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
And the first item here.
“Who is this Mozart?”
“Who is this Mozart?”
A dead white man. Apparently, that’s all one neeed know about him.
Apparently, that’s all one need know about him.
And like many of her peers, the student in question, the one taking on crippling debt to study the humanities at Columbia University, has been encouraged to cultivate a prideful narrowness, an indignant ignorance. By educators. In the name of progress.
Concerning the race to the bottom that is intersectional identity politics:
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/womens-march-falling-apart-because-racism-white-privilege/
It must be fun when the movement you’ve worked for starts lecturing you about your privilege.
That last phrase suggests that the fact that blacks make up 13% of the populations makes the fact that they are responsible for 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites even worse.
It does not. That is poor statistical reasoning. The 85% statistic is meaningful, but not the ratio of blacks to whites in the population.
When one’s status is predicated solely upon discovering and (loudly) denouncing offense, it’s no wonder one has to dig ever deeper to find it, if not create it out of thin air. How these grievance mongers don’t collapse from emotional exhaustion due to their constant state of hypervigilance is not clear to me.
Whenever someone refers to something another person has as a “privilege”, nine times out of ten it’s because the complainer would like to see that something taken away. All well and good when talking about an inherited perq or some other such gewgaw maintained at public expense. But downright frightening when applied to something previously considered a simple human right, such as free speech or the right to be left alone to make a living for oneself to the best of one’s abilities.
These things are now “privileges”, apparently, having been repackaged as such for easy disposal when the time is ripe.
It’s far easier to lazily denounce someone else’s “white male privilege” than to go out and exercise one’s own rights to acquire the same “privileges”.
Whenever someone refers to something another person has as a “privilege”, nine times out of ten it’s because the complainer would like to see that something taken away.
It’s a license for petty malice and endless excuses, and hence the kinds of personalities it attracts. On the upside, unironic use of the term is a credible indicator of people whose company and influence you may wish to avoid. See also, intersectional.
It’s far easier to lazily denounce someone else’s “white male privilege” than to go out and exercise one’s own rights to acquire the same “privileges”.
Jib, I like the cut of that comment.
“That is poor statistical reasoning. The 85% statistic is meaningful, but not the ratio of blacks to whites in the population.”
Could you explain why to the rest of us? The 13% ratio appeared pertinent to me, but I’ve been surprised by statistics before.
The scope of things that can deemed a form of “privilege” – and therefore a basis for scolding and pretentious shame – expands daily and shows no sign of slowing. I’ve seen people denouncing someone else’s willingness to pay attention in school as a sign of “privilege,” or their ability to string together comprehensible sentences, or the fact that they or their parents have at some point been vaguely conscientious. And some pious souls are quite happy to claim, apparently in all seriousness, that, “Parents reading their children bedtime stories… are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children.”
A sane person might argue that, actually, functional parents don’t “unfairly disadvantage” the children of bad parents, although bad parents all too often do. Say, by not reading to their own children. But the point here, the goal, is to make functional parents believe that they have something to atone for, along with the children themselves. Because it’s so terribly unfair that some people are better parents than others. Again, the starting point isn’t logic or compassion. The starting point is spite.
Could you explain why to the rest of us?
I’m not a statistician, but it appears to mix cohorts among other things. Blacks are 13% of the whole population, which includes races other than Caucasian. That fact is relevant to interracial crime only if all races are included. If we compare only Blacks and Caucasians, then the proportion if Blacks would be greater than 13% of the total. That said, the stats show that Blacks perpetrate more than their “fair share” of interracial crime.
@ Richard Cranium
Killer Marmot may not be around, so here goes:
Let’s imagine a population of 100, composed of 10% green people and 90% blue people.
Let’s further imagine that the same proportion of each group – 20% – is composed of muggers.
So, we have 2 green muggers and 18 blue muggers.
Let’s imagine that all our muggers chose entirely random victims from the total population (other muggers and non-muggers alike); racial animus doesn’t enter into it.
So, for any given mugging carried out by a green mugger, there is a 9 in 99 chance that the victim will be green and a 90 in 99 chance that the victim will be blue.
Likewise, for any given mugging carried out by a blue mugger, there will be a 10 in 99 chance that the victim will be green and an 89 in 99 chance that the victim will be blue.
Let’s now imagine than in a given year, each mugger carries out 99 muggings (about 2 a week, with a few days off for Christmas, birthdays, etc.).
Our 2 green muggers will mug 198 people between them. If the victims are chosen in an entirely random manner, 18 of them will be green (9*2) and 180 of them will be blue (90*2).
Our 18 blue muggers will mug 1782 people between them. Again, if the victims are chosen in an entirely random manner, 180 of them will be green (10*18) and 1602 of them will be blue (89*18).
So, you can see that of the total muggings, 360 of them were inter-colour and muggers from each of the 2 colour groups in our total population were responsible for exactly 50% of them.
In other words, we shouldn’t expect the smaller group to be responsible for less of the inter-group crime than the other.
Obviously, in my example, lots of people end up getting mugged multiple times. It’s just to illustrate the arithmetic involved.
“Microaggression training is instruction in how to detect ever smaller specks in your neighbour’s eye”
Why has the Tocqueville Effect not been brought into the popular consciousness by mainstream media?
It’s just to illustrate the arithmetic involved.
I was told there would be no math.
@R. Sherman and @George, thanks for the points and example. I believe that I see Killer Marmot’s point.
@ R. Sherman, that hardly counts as maths (as we say on this side of the pond)!
@ Richard Cranium, indeed, what matters is the 87% figure. I have a lot of time for Heather Mac Donald and I’m torn between hoping that she wasn’t being disingenuous in introducing an irrelevant element to make that 87% seem even worse than it is and despairing that yet another journalist just doesn’t get statistics….
@George & Richard
A better stat would compare the number of individual perpetrators within a given cohort to that cohort’s percentage of the total population. The number of racially motivated crimes seems to me to be less relevant than the number of individual perpetrators. That is, there could be one person committing ten crimes versus ten people committing ten crimes.
If we compare only Blacks and Caucasians, then the proportion if Blacks would be greater than 13% of the total.
True, but what is missed is that of that subset of blacks who commit violent crimes against anyone, most are men, so the real issue is that if we include women who commit violent crime against anyone, the accurate statement would be that those blacks who commit violent crimes against anyone come from only about 7-8% of the total population of the US. The same is true of whites who, per the 2010 census, are 72% of the total population, so the same subset of white violent criminals come from around 36-38% of the total population. Now let us go back to the original statement:
Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population
The key words are “interracial crimes between blacks and whites”, no other races figure into this, and not all members of any racial group are going to commit interracial crimes, which is what makes the statistic misleading.
However, if the 85% is accurate, it means that out of every 100 interracial crimes, either black on white or vice versa, 85 will be committed by blacks, and 15 by whites. Stated otherwise and more precisely, persons from 36-38% of the total population account for 15/100 black/white interracial crimes, whereas persons from 7-8% of the total population account for 85/100 black/white interracial crimes, which is a significant skew.
Though the correctness of the original statement is off, the meaning is not.
It’s 85%, not 87%. Don’t know where that came from… Not that it changes anything.
It’s worthwhile to note that the percentage of the population is irrelevant. This 85% refers to interacial crimes between blacks and white. This means that it only refers to black/white interactions that result in a crime taking place.
If blacks and whites were equally likely to be criminals, then whenever a crime takes place between one white person and one black person, then it’d be a coin flip 50/50 chance. This would hold true whether there were only 100 black people in the US, or a billion black people. Likewise, it would hold true in a society where black and white interactions were very common, or whether they were very rare.
Now, the issue I have with this statistic used in regards to racial animosity, is that it does not account for greater likelihood of blacks to commit crimes. If 85% of white/black criminal interactions have blacks as the criminal, then that means that blacks are almost 6 times more likely to commit a white/black crime than whites. However, if I recall correctly, blacks are also around 5 to 6 times more likely to commit crimes regardless of the race of the victim. As such, the interacial crime likelihood is merely a reflection of black crime rates in general, and without controlling for more factors, is no indicator of black/white racial animosity.
I happen to think there is greater animosity of blacks towards white than vice-versa, but this statistic does nothing to prove that.
@ Farnsworth M Muldoon
I’m a bit confused about what you mean when you refer to including women. Either we include them, in which case violent black criminals come from 13% of the total population, or we don’t include them, in which case we just divide all the numbers by 2. But if we divide all the numbers by 2 across the board, we get exactly the same result as if we don’t divide them by 2.
You seem to be doing neither, as you refer to 7-8%. But then for whites you refer to 36-38%, when the corresponding figures would be approximately 39-44%.
However, that’s not the key point. What matters is what I tried to explain in my example of a fictitious green and blue population. Given absolutely equal levels of criminality across two groups and absolutely random targeting of victims, the smaller group will still be the aggressor in 50% of intergroup violent crime. It doesn’t matter if they’re 10%, 13%, or 15% (blacks as a proportion of only black and white Americans).
There is a skew but the skew is the difference between 50% and 85%, not between some lower percentage and 85%.
… and Sines314 makes a good point too about having to see it in the wider context of overall crime rates by the group in question.
I was told there would be no math.
Speaking of impolite statistics, the last two paragraphs here and the links therein seem somewhat relevant.
“The microaggression research program (MRP) rests on five core premises, namely, that microaggressions (1) are operationalized with sufficient clarity and consensus to afford rigorous scientific investigation; (2) are interpreted negatively by most or all minority group members; (3) reflect implicitly prejudicial and implicitly aggressive motives; (4) can be validly assessed using only respondents’ subjective reports; and (5) exert an adverse impact on recipients’ mental health. A review of the literature reveals negligible support for all five suppositions.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691616659391
I’m a bit confused about what you mean when you refer to including women.
It is a bit of a SWAG. We know that men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women, and US DoJ figures have stated that female violent offenders are about 14% of all violent offenders. The same figures show that the crime rate among men drops off over about age 50, whereas female offenders are most represented by ages 29 and below. Given that not all men are going to commit violent crimes, and accounting for ages, an outside figure for a potential pool of criminals is going to be around half of any given population. Half would be 6.5 and 36% respectively, but there are 3.2% more females >age 10 (not much of a criminal class regardless of race), hence 7-8%, etc.
Regardless of what numbers you want to use, what we are really talking about is known rates, not theoretical probability, and the fact remains that 85/100 black/white interracial crimes are committed by blacks, and 15/100 by whites.
If the population of blacks and whites is 10000, and one person commits a single interracial crime, going with the full percentages if you prefer, that means 85/1300 blacks and 15/8700 whites were criminals. If it is one guy committing all the crimes, it is still 1/1300 versus 1/8700. In the later case one can try to make the argument that it is just one guy that has gone haywire, but it does not explain why someone in the smaller group was 6.7 times more likely to go haywire. The only way you can flip the statistic is to assume 1 black commits all the crimes, and 15 whites do, in which case the rate turns into 1/1300 blacks verses 1/580 whites.
However, the difficulty with your scenario is, Given absolutely equal levels of criminality across two groups and absolutely random targeting of victims…, which is a assumption clearly demonstrated to be false as borne out by crime rates in the US unless one is to believe all the states, the FBI, and DoJ are just making stuff up.
I was reminded of the “crab-bucket world of intersectional identity politics” when listening to In Our Time on Radio 4 this morning as they discussed Friedrich Nietzsche and the triumph of slave morality in the West, for example “the jealous weak seeking to enslave the strong and thus erode the basis for power itself by pulling the powerful down.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b087rt4z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
“Nietzsche condemns the triumph of slave morality in the West, saying that the democratic movement is the “collective degeneration of man”.[8] He claimed that the nascent democratic movement of his time was essentially slavish and weak. Weakness conquered strength, slave conquered master, re-sentiment conquered sentiment. This ressentiment Nietzsche calls “priestly vindictiveness,” which is based on the jealous weak seeking to enslave the strong and thus erode the basis for power itself by pulling the powerful down. Such movements were, according to Nietzsche, inspired by “the most intelligent revenge” of the weak. Nietzsche saw democracy and Christianity as the same emasculating impulse which sought to make everyone equal by making everyone a slave.”
However, the difficulty with your scenario is…
You’re absolutely right that the crime rates are very different but that wasn’t my point. My point was that the smaller group would be responsible for 50% of inter-group crimes even if the larger group were just as criminally-inclined. So the proportion of each group in the total population is irrelevant.
And this sort of misleading introduction of an irrelevant element into a discussion involving statistics matters. Imagine a situation where someone writes “Group x is outnumbered 8 to 1 by group y but members of group x are the aggressors in almost half of all cases of inter-group violence between members of the two groups”.
Many people would interpret that statistic quite wrongly.
Sorry about the orphaned tag there..
Heather Mac,
“Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population.”
I call out racism for her pointing this out.
Thanks for fixing that David.
[ Wipes crumbs from bar, freshens trail mix. ]
Regarding leftist cultural criticism, I keep thinking about these lines from Wordsworth.
For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue. And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.
I feel a little pretentious quoting that (standard fare in my high school days), but I also feel sorry for anyone who could read that and only think that its representative of the thoughts of a dead white male. These kids who have this leftist cultural criticism shoved down their throats are being cheated out of the stuff that makes everyone’s life richer.
In short, how do you hear “the still, sad music of humanity” when humanity is not a concept you acknowledge?
“That said, the stats show that Blacks perpetrate more than their “fair share” of interracial crime.”
That means white folks need to up their game to get their “fair share” of interracial crime…
So the proportion of each group in the total population is irrelevant.
The proportion of a group in the total population is the key element to deriving the rates at which an event in that population occurs, which is the proper metric for measuring the difference in occurrence of an event between subsets of that population.
“That last phrase suggests that the fact that blacks make up 13% of the populations makes the fact that they are responsible for 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites even worse.
It does not. That is poor statistical reasoning. The 85% statistic is meaningful, but not the ratio of blacks to whites in the population.”
Actually, it is misleading, as the “13% of the population” is incorrect. According to data gathered by the FBI, these crimes are commited by young black males below the age of 22. Therefore, approximately 5% of this population sample commits these crimes.
Men commit more crimes due to women, real or imagined.
That is life, they say.
If the game is rigged, then that is just physical constants. Mess with that and stuff gets blown up.
Allowable and logical, given constraints.
Farnsworth M., I think, is closer to the truth than some other theses offered. Supposing that these incidents occur as natural outcome of white/black interaction rate and that a”normal” rate would be 50/50 disregarding percent in the population, well, that misses something.
If one takes the not-unreasoble assumption that willful choices are made in a percentage of the population to engage in hostile racial acts, the rate (as a percent) of “I’m going after whitey” decisions in the black population is astronomically higher than “I’m going to get a n***” among whites.
This won’t be all crimes, but shouldn’t be discounted, as crime is *not* purely random. Particularly since the worst areas for such crimes are usually less integrated, making targeting require more premeditation than a random robbery of a neighbor.
. . . . and things you mustn’t notice:
If one takes the not-unreasonable assumption that wilful choices are made in a percentage of the population to engage in hostile racial acts, the rate (as a percent) of “I’m going after whitey” decisions in the black population is astronomically higher than “I’m going to get a n***” among whites.
Absolutely, and I haven’t suggested anything else. That’s why the figure isn’t 50% but 85%.
The issue of the extent to which it’s a question of “going after whitey” – as opposed to “going after someone who’s less likely to fight back” or “going after someone who’s likely to be carrying more money or valuables” or “going after someone who’s wandered into my neighbourhood by mistake and won’t have backup” – is more complex. But the result is the same, whatever the motivation might be.
I’ve ordered Sohrab Ahmari’s book, though I fear I may agree with it too much.
It’s a problem that’s getting worse not better. I’ve posted and lurked for a while at an American popular culture website (the AV Club). It’s always been quite leftwing, but I’ve had plenty of interesting discussions, and read more, about all sorts of topics. it used to be easy enough to steer clear of the political threads, when they came up.
In the past couple of years (and even more so in the past few months), partly due to new ownership and partly due to new and notably younger writers, there’s been a marked shift in content. Everything is now political. Every piece of popular culture is judged not on its universal appeal, but on whether it meets the criteria of the new left. “Is this ‘problematic’?” the writers seem to wonder “How can I demonstrate how right-thinking I am by pointing out that it is ‘problematic’ first?”.
The constant assumption in these pieces is that their authors understand the world and those who disagree do not. They are “woke”, they have degrees in some identitarian gibberish and they are on the right side of history. This crap appears to be the future, unfortunately. Tomorrow belongs to them.
there’s been a marked shift in content… Every piece of popular culture is judged not on its universal appeal, but on whether it meets the criteria of the new left. “Is this ‘problematic’?” the writers seem to wonder. “How can I demonstrate how right-thinking I am by pointing out that it is ‘problematic’ first?”.
I’ve certainly noticed an increase in this approach – a jarring, often incongruous set of identitarian assumptions, a rote uniformity. The number of cultural sites I read is shrinking as a result.
The irony, I suppose, is that the writers of these things most likely imagine themselves as a daring and righteous alternative, when in fact they’re typically the humanities graduates who were most credulous and willing to conform to the preferences and conceits of their leftist educators. And whose articles on “cultural appropriation” or whatever read like they were copied from the same lecture notes as every other, near identical piece.
The tragedy of the situation, as with the Mozart example above, is that these young idiots have been failed by their overpriced education. There’s no merit in being taught that you understand the world completely at 23, or that people who disagree with you are slavering monsters, or suffering from ‘white/male/cis privilege.”
I want to be able to read the opinions and reviews of sensible left-wing people, as I have done in the past. They’ll often have a different take that wouldn’t have occurred to me. But they just seem to be dying out – even the older ones have started aping their juniors.
By way of a bit of balance, it can be a bit difficult to replace these sorts of sites. There aren’t necessarily that many right wing equivalents and there’s an increasing sense of falling between two stools.
Sargon on CNN and lies by omission.
https://youtu.be/YjFmOKqyWpE
And… another ‘hate crime’ turns out to be a hoax.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/12/fake-hate-black-teenage-girl-cited-for-sending-out-racist-threatening-tweets/
And… another ‘hate crime’ turns out to be a hoax.
It’s the “social justice” fashion craze that just won’t die. At this stage, with hoaxes being uncovered practically every week, you have to wonder what the ratio is of actual, egregious racist incidents and narcissistic fabrications.
I essentially discount them these days unless there’s celphone video.
But I was told Milo was the fascist…
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/13/reports-leftists-pull-hammers-milo-uc-davis-event-smash-windows/
But I was told Milo was the fascist…
But Joan, smashing windows with hammers and spitting on people, and deliberately scalding them with hot coffee, is what brave little warriors do. How else are we supposed to know how righteous they are, how pure of heart?
Heh…the guy with the black bandanna over his face with the tattooed skull. Hope that hair grows in quick, you man of mystery.
In other news, Channel 4’s Jon Snow is apparently having difficulty understanding both time and causality.
Charlie Suet
Everything is now political. Every piece of popular culture is judged not on its universal appeal, but on whether it meets the criteria of the new left.
Yes, and their very tedious claim is that all culture is political, which implies that there is no such thing as “mere” entertainment. Such a grim and inflexible view is part of the totalitarian mindset, because it makes the sphere of politics all-embracing. It means that every film or play or artwork is political – and so may need to be censored. Further, it means that every voluntary association is political to some extent – including even those concerned with allotments, bird watching, hunting, sports, education etc.
Leftist cultural criticism is paralleled by the Breitbartian view that all politics is downstream culture. However, this actually a much more limited position. It means that politics is part of culture (as opposed to culture being a part of politics), and it requires vigilance about leftist propaganda in popular culture – a role our host performs so admirably.
Such a grim and inflexible view is part of the totalitarian mindset, because it makes the sphere of politics all-embracing.
As I’m sure I’ve said before, if I were to start insisting on a similar political purity in the culture I enjoy, it would be exhausting to maintain and I’d very soon end up with a lot of unoccupied time. For instance, I enjoyed Firefly and the Avengers films, but the writer and director of those works, Joss Whedon, has political views that are both fatuous and modishly infantile. And he’s by no means an anomaly, in fact it’s pretty much the norm.
…if I were to start insisting on a similar political purity in the culture I enjoy… I’d very soon end up with a lot of unoccupied time”
Quite so. It would rule out all RSC productions, for example.
But I was told Milo was the fascist…
“The students are being completely peaceful and respectful”
https://youtu.be/Wi60NH4Cm7Q
“The students are being completely peaceful and respectful”
The brave little “social justice” warriors – the ones screaming and spitting at random strangers and throwing hot coffee at people just for carrying cameras – seem trapped in a loop, unable to adapt their behaviour. Do they not realise that their own thuggish dramas prove Milo’s point? The more they react like this, the more books he’ll sell and the more media and student interest he’ll attract.
Of course, being narcissists who are titillated by thuggery, they face a dilemma. Acting out their role-play and psychodrama does nothing to stop Milo’s celebrity, such as it is, or to inhibit interest in what he says – indeed, he thrives on it – and it ultimately makes him look credible at their expense. But if they stop being hysterical and thuggish and, well, ignore him, then how will they let each other know how terribly radical they are?
And what’s student leftism without that?
Joss Whedon, has political views that are both fatuous and modishly infantile.
If you want to enjoy yourself, dig up the TV series unREAL and remember – everything Marti Noxon writes is semi-autobiographical.
Joss Whedon, has political views that are both fatuous and modishly infantile.
1. Rich lefty takes selfie with hardcore feminist.
2. Same rich lefty jokes about rape and women as puppets and gets zero blowback from feminists.
So lefty rules don’t apply when you’re making rape jokes about conservatives.