Elsewhere (229)

Rod Dreher on identity politics versus art: 

Schutz’s painting has been denounced by some black artists and others, because the painter is white. Hannah Black, a British-born black artist, has written an open letter demanding that the Whitney Museum not only take the painting down, but also destroy it. 

Mark Steyn on our tolerant betters: 

The left doesn’t want to win the debate. They want to cancel the debate… A case in point, [this headline]: “Citing security issues, the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls off her scheduled Australian tour.” Let’s just expand that “Somali-born activist” précis a little. She’s not a dead white male like me or Charles Murray. As someone once said, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is everything the identity-group fetishists profess to dig: female, atheist, black, immigrant. But, because she does not toe the party line on Islam, her blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly anchor-man – and so do her femaleness and godlessness and immigrant status. And in the end she is Charles Murray, or Geert Wilders – or even David Duke. A black Somali woman is, it turns out, a “white supremacist.”

And by way of timely illustration, at Villanova University, Charles Murray once again encounters the leftist welcome wagon: 

Political science professor and event coordinator Colleen Sheehan offered [the disruptive students] the first question during the Q&A. Nonetheless, all offers by the hosts were rebuffed by the protesters, who continued to interrupt the lecture.

Note how these attention-seeking clowns – who grin at their own lies and then demand applause – are indulged, effetely and at length, by university staff, as if the venue were a toddlers’ day-care centre. And note that the protestors, who wish to impose themselves on others and inhibit other people’s discussion, refuse to participate in the debate without ultimate veto and Disruptor’s Privilege.

Rob Jenkins on incompetent graduates and inverted meanings: 

Traditionally, the “critical” part of the term “critical thinking” has referred not to the act of criticising, or finding fault, but rather to the ability to be objective. “Critical,” in this context, means “open-minded,” seeking out, evaluating and weighing all the available evidence. It means being “analytical,” breaking an issue down into its component parts and examining each in relation to the whole. Above all, it means “dispassionate,” recognising when and how emotions influence judgment and having the mental discipline to distinguish between subjective feelings and objective reason — then prioritising the latter over the former.

And Stefan Kanfer on the University of Regina’s “masculinity confession booths”: 

A video… catalogues the many ways in which males are responsible for war, violence, and sexual predation; why male undergraduates should be ashamed of themselves most if not all of the time; and what can be done about their current condition. The footage contains the quintessence of Maoism, expressed by a Regina football player. “We don’t have to continue to live in a misogynistic society,” he proclaims. The present status is nothing to quo about, and the task of alteration “falls on everyone and especially men because frankly we are the problem right now.” Other classmates earnestly fall in line.

Somewhat related, remember this?

As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.