Screaming Into A Mirror
Further to the last item here, and various rumblings in the comments, here’s Nanette Asimov on The Screeching Left versus Ben Shapiro (and anyone who wants to engage him in debating ideas):
For many protesters, the specifics of what the opposition says is not the point. “It doesn’t matter what the guy’s going to say,” said Michael Heaney, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the sociology of protest movements. “He could talk about the joys of apple-picking. What matters is that the counter-movement is trying to use the energy of the (event) to grow. This is an opportunity for them — and they are likely to seize upon it.”
And hence the conceit that any disagreement is an act of “violence,” to be repaid in kind, violently. For the hyperventilated protestors, it’s all about them and their psychodrama. Because it always is. And so we see self-styled ‘progressives’, the self-imagined woke, calling a Jewish man “Nazi scum” and a “fascist xenophobe” because he opposes racism and thuggery, and wants to have conversations in which students consider issues of basic humanity.
See also, Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Janice Fiamengo, etc., etc.
And so there’s no way to please the competitively indignant, who must forever be aggrieved, short of total and ongoing deference.
– Yet, there are ways to address them; ridicule and starvation work wonders.
Have we, even inadvertently, picked the better of two onerous possibilities?
The problem is, even under the “old” system, caregivers relied upon the government, i.e. its court system, to determine whether someone was a danger to himself or others to the extent that he warranted involuntary commitment, usually in a state institution. You are correct, that such a system relied on trust in caregivers, i.e. parents or physicians, to not overreach and courts to confine themselves to true mental illness. Still, the state was a player in the process and anytime that situation exists, there is a risk that the system will be perverted for political ends. Those in power always have an interest in punishing and/or eliminating “wrong think,” and playing with the definition of “mental illness” is an easy way to accomplish that.
The best at taking input and regurgitating that input back out at a later date. . . . Using thinking and reasoning and especially physical interaction with the real world to test if what it is you think you know is actually something you really know just wastes teacher’s time.
I’m reminded of an experience of my own that’s only tangential in circumstance: Years ago I recurringly encountered someone who at best was and is acknowledged as a rather cretinous and malevolent psychopath. A repeated insistence made by the idiot was that all that one ever needs to learn of tactics comes from the game of chess—with playing chess being something the idiot didn’t even do himself. A bit after I first ran across the idiot, I watched him encounter the game of Go.
After awhile he actually started to sort out that Go involves open ended learning, assessing ambiguity, having balance, working with entire battlefield scale strategy, instead of merely fencing in a closet with toothpicks.
He then absolutely doubled down on his demands that chess be declared preeminent, possibly with the idea that he could be considered to have a clue just by extension.
—And noting doubling down and that ilk, over time I did also find out his approach to anything else involving the tactics of strategy and chance. At no point did I ever hear anything of the skills involved in blackjack or, especially, poker. Instead his emphatic preferences were penny and nickel maximum slot machines, and craps.
Hatefacts strike again:
As noted before, David Cannadine‘s book on the operational realities of the British Empire—and anywhere else of the sort—: Ornamentalism.
Instalanche!
Instalanche!
We need more coasters.
We need more coasters.
On can never have enough coasters.
The always insightful Richard Fernandez:
They’ve constructed an ideological prison from which there is no escape. I’ve seen many of the same self-imposed shackles in actress Leah Remini’s rather shocking exposé of her years in Scientology on the US cable channel A&E.
(Sorry for the over-long quote, but there’s too much good stuff there to pull out just a snippet. Although I’ve quoted the meat of it, as Insty says, read the whole thing.)
They’ve constructed an ideological prison from which there is no escape. I’ve seen many of the same self-imposed shackles…
And yet it is they who have been driving the culture, law, media, education, etc. for the last few decades. Exactly who is in this ideological prison?
The left-leaning students in Shapiro’s videos obviously know what kind of political noises they’re expected to make, and make loudly, and happily comply, but so many of them seem genuinely unable to formulate a rational argument.
I noticed that about my polyamorous, feminist pal Angela. She used to take a position and do the equivalent of reading the headline, but wasn’t able to take the argument to any depth. She’d rote-learned the mantra from her mates, but was unable to support any of it. To her credit, I was able to win her round on a few minor issues.
She’d rote-learned the mantra from her mates, but was unable to support any of it.
To a large and grimly comical extent, it’s about posturing and conformism – which attitudes to display in order to win the approval of other idiots. Who to denounce, loudly and ostentatiously, is obviously an important signal; though, as illustrated in the videos above, there’s apparently no obligation to know why. Which I suppose saves a lot of time.
But to those of us who are less needy, and whose social lives are less theatrical, it does seem a little odd to spend an entire evening, maybe several evenings, loudly and publicly badmouthing someone you know nothing at all about, and while utterly unconcerned by whether or not the badmouthing is deserved or perverse.
I believe applicants to Berkeley have to take the Miller Analogies Test, and score below the 50th %ile. Those who score above may be admitted provisionally but must pass “Critical Race Theory” to assure the University that all sense of irony hsd been extinguished.
I can tell you when I realized we’re all doomed : 1997. I was visiting a friend at her university and I was invited to, what I was told, a group of the smartest people in the entire university including the professors. After a while someone declared there has never been cannibalism anywhere. Cannibalism is a lie to dehumanize and otherize people. I pointed out a Chippewas tribe that would ceremonially eat the flesh of their enemy, the Paupauan cannibals with the prion disease, the Maori, the Donner Party, and the Raft of the Medusa. They insisted. I suggested calling the university library and asking them to check (librarians love that). They refused and resorted to name calling. Eventually, they admitted that the Donner Party was cannibalism but at the same time insisted that there has never been cannibalism anywhere. (fyi, referencing the cannibalism of the Medusa was considered racist against the French who suffer enough from Americans mocking them). When leaving 2 people came up to me and mentioned how surreal the conversation had been and that they would have mentioned it at the time but they didn’t want to be called racist. After a long silence my friend said “that was soooo embarrassing” and I said “yeah, they’re supposed to be the smartest people in the entire university?!” and she stopped dead and pointed out that I had been the problem. So, we walked to the library and with the librarians’ help convinced her that reality is still there.
For some it isn’t about logic or consistency or a strict ideology or even a religious like devotion instead it is all about identifying the ideas that are fashionable trends and which are the ideas not to be caught dead in and conforming to it no matter what. I know a girl who went from peace, love and harmony pacifism even opposed to self defense to “sure, let’s punch nazis” in an almost overnight transformation.
In 1807 the British Empire ended slavery throughout it’s domain.
The United States 13th Ammendment was ratified in 1865, almost 60 years later.
If America was still a part of the Empire in 1807, then abolition would have been ‘imposed’ on us. A colonial demand would have made the lives of wealthy white people worse, and colored people better.
Colonialism has done many bad things. But in light of the British Slave Trade Act of 1807, it would be foolish to claim that it had no positive effects for people who lived under it’s yoke. I haven’t read this persons paper, nor do I know much about the subject in general, but I don’t find it hard to believe that the British Empire did some measurable good to it’s colonies.
A major part of the disconnect between the largely female (or feminized) Leftist Liberals and the largely masculine conservatives is not so much ideology but the differences between the way men and women communicate. Of course, this is only my observation and opinion, so it does not rise to the level of unquestioned fact….and that is part of the problem too.
Men communicate with words and they give some care to which words are arranged, and in which order. Every word has a meaning and all the words strung together become a message, which is largely intended for other men. Yes, men speak to other men about men-stuff.
Women communicate with feelings, or more actually, with tone and sense. The actual words used are not nearly as important as the tone of their performance. It does not matter much WHAT you say….it only matters how you say it. This is particularly true in the English language, which is a spoken language. You could actually say the same English words a dozen different ways, changing the emphasis and tone, and mean a dozen different things.
But don’t just take my word for it. (No pun intended.) You can perform a relatively inexpensive experiment yourself the next time you are having a discussion with a woman, even one who knows you very well. Stop the discussion and ask them to repeat what you said (word for word) a few minutes ago. They usually cannot because they did not listen to the actual words that you said….they only focused on HOW you said it, and your tone and your attitude. They seldom retain those carefully crafted messages verbatim, they only know how it made them feel at the time. That is why they are more likely to get into an argument with you about something you never said….because they know better what you meant.
Not parody
I have to say I experienced bystander-embarrassment anxiety watching that.
D
I hope I’ve not grown older, but wiser and really paid attention in order to communicate clearly with both men and women.
(I credit listening to a lot of Dennis Prager’s talks explaining men’s nature so women can understand in this, too)
I find that a lot of people of both sexes, when you think they are listening to you speak, are busy in their mind formulating their next argument against you.
Today’s word is gratitude.
“Related”
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/909861874409205760
They refused and resorted to name calling. Eventually, they admitted that the Donner Party was cannibalism but at the same time insisted that there has never been cannibalism anywhere. (fyi, referencing the cannibalism of the Medusa was considered racist against the French who suffer enough from Americans mocking them). When leaving 2 people came up to me and mentioned how surreal the conversation had been and that they would have mentioned it at the time but they didn’t want to be called racist. After a long silence my friend said “that was soooo embarrassing” and I said “yeah, they’re supposed to be the smartest people in the entire university?!” and she stopped dead and pointed out that I had been the problem.
Heh…been there once or twice. Cute how you were the one with the self-awareness problem.
Cute how you were the one with the self-awareness problem.
Virtue-signalling one’s membership in the tribe outweighs all other considerations.
I was turfed out of a cooking group on Facebook (of all places) for pointing out that no matter how tasty homemade almond essence might be, making things out of peach pits was extremely risky and the “lab test results” the original poster had allegedly contracted to prove her recipe safe were dangerously wrong.
In 1807 the British Empire ended slavery throughout it’s domain.
The effort the British put into the abolition of the slave trade (including squadrons of the Royal Navy off the coast of West Africa) and abolition of slavery in the 19th century onwards is something, as a Brit, I’m proud of. But it was only the trade that was abolished. It was not until 1833 that the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed. Perhaps, if the 13 Colonies had not won independence abolition could have come earlier and race relations in the US would not have been as poisonous. But the cost to the North of buying out the South might have been much harder and the importance of slavery to the South much greater than it was to the UK. And, without prompting, the Northern states had abolished slavery after independence, so credit is due there.
And, without prompting, the Northern states had abolished slavery after independence, so credit is due there.
Well, it’s easier to do so when your economy doesn’t require slave labor and you don’t have a lot of them.
Upon reflection, it’s obvious that the “anchor baby” idea wasn’t in effect until sometime after the American Civil War. I should look that up.
Ah. The 14th Amendment makes the difference.