Sow’s Ear

And we’re not just talking out of our ass?

“We supplement our fartistic statements with verbal queef and relentless, aggressive dickery. And we know shit. All below the waist, all the time. Why do you think we like to say ‘fuck’?”

As noted in the previous thread…
Why, it’s almost as if lowering standards until you’re admitting borderline morons and then pandering to their morony, and explaining away the consequences of that morony as always and forever someone else’s fault, and doing it year after year, at enormous expense, until it becomes an established culture of morony… It’s almost as if doing that has sub-optimal consequences.
Of course, it isn’t just the so-called students. Some supposedly professional educators could use a little polish too.

How the hell did these people get *in* to university?

I’m reminded of…

“Well, very simple: all they have to do is apply.”
Also parent’s checks that don’t bounce.

Some supposedly professional educators could use a little polish too.
I’ve got just the thing for them, too.

“Lawyer for Faiz Siddiqui, who alleges ‘inadequate’ teaching stunted his career, says low 2:1 was ‘huge disappointment’”
Graduate in a million quid claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/21/graduate-in-1m-claim-was-badly-let-down-by-oxford-court-told
Couldn’t someone just tell him to study a bit harder?

listen to us, listen to what we’re saying.
We listened. it was just swearing. Come back when you can construct an argument.

Extraordinary! I swear it’s like being able to watch Aristotle, Pliny and John Stewart Mill take part in a debate.

…an ongoing series of events…that seeks to promote “understanding, appreciation, and acceptance while moving talk into action.”
In fairness, that event sounds like a truly tedious way to spend an afternoon. On the bright side, though, it managed to get a group of otherwise useless administrators together in a room with useless “students” for a couple of hours thereby leaving the rest of the campus in peace.

indulged by spineless poseurs
I’m guessing they’re not totally spineless. I’d bet they’re all balls-to-the-walls when the College Republicans or some such fail to dot an i or cross a t on their application for being allowed to exist. Of course it helps when cucks get all grownup about it and acknowledge their mistake.

Of course it reads like a “damnit, we got busted” apology.
Thus demonstrating Lindsay’s greatest sin: Exposing the Maoists to public scrutiny and ridicule. It’s nice to think she might find a different, more accommodating academic home, but I fear she has now become a pariah among the intelligentsia. It’s one thing to demonstrate insufficient enthusiasm for the orthodoxy; it’s another to air the “family’s” dirty laundry out in front of God and everybody. The university and Lindsay’s inquisitors will suffer no lasting harm from this. In fact, their status among their peers will undoubtedly increase. Lindsay however will now be a persona non grata within academe’s insulated Leftist world.

It’s surprising to me that Feminists have not jumped on board to defend Lindsay, who claims to be fairly left-wing in her political leanings. After all, she was berated by three higher status males to the point of tears under circumstances where it’s apparent that her inquisitors were enjoying themselves in the process. In the U.S., Title IX investigations have been started for flimsier reasons.

Yeah, I suspect by now a job in virtually any HR department requires an Angry Studies degree.

It’s surprising to me that Feminists have not jumped on board to defend Lindsay,
Instead, Ms Shepherd, along with those who expressed criticism of her treatment, are being accused of “upholding transphobic ideologies” and enacting “epistemic violence” on trans people. Because apparently, all trans people think alike, on every issue, and daring to demur from this supposedly uniform mindset, even in the most civil and even-handed way, is “transphobic.”

Because apparently, all trans people think alike, on every issue, and daring to demur from this supposedly uniform mindset, even in the most civil and even-handed way, is “transphobic.”
Funny how they’re happy to “erase” trans people’s individuality. 🙂

Instead, Ms Shepherd, along with those who expressed criticism of her treatment, are being accused of “upholding transphobic ideologies” and enacting “epistemic violence” on trans people.
It’s worthwhile to recall precisely what she did: She showed a clip of a nationally televised debate where both sides of a specific issue, i.e. the wisdom of legal penalties for not using one’s preferred third person pronouns, were presented. That is, she provided the context in a course entitled “Communication in [Fucking] Context.” She did nothing to advocate for a position. She merely acknowledged that such existed. As you have noted time and time again, the conclusion that bad faith permeates the Left’s attempts at engagement is hard to escape.

And we’re not just talking out of our ass, like we’re smart as fuck, you know what I mean?
I believe it means, “You better nod your heads ‘yes’ or things are gonna get broken here, starting with your face.”

…after all, the indoctrinated have been taking over Human Resources and management roles for decades now.
That is only an issue for a job in a that requires fuzzy qualifications in a fuzzy industry, and where HR are the hiring authority. It likely would not be an issue at Boeing if she were to take up aerospace engineering, of if she went to medical school, or at Merrill Lynch if she got an MBA from Wharton. OTOH, if she took up physics to combine that with her communications background and applied at the NY Times to be a science writer, yeah, she’d be hosed.

That.
It’s a good discussion.

It likely would not be an issue at Boeing
In the context of HR departments and who runs them, are you sure about that Farnsworth? My experience in the defense industry and even elsewhere in private industry, is that HR departments in most, if not all, large corporations, but especially corporations with extensive ties to western governments, are rife with these kinds of people. Very few HR people have technical knowledge, which in itself is not that big of a deal but additionally they are increasingly populated with non-techies who have a resentment of technical types. I think that was some of the problem at Google and elsewhere.

Tomorrow we Yanks get turkey & stuffing while you Brits are stuck with “eggs.” We feel for you.
If you’re ever over here in late November, you are all invited to the Pogonippery for Thanksgiving.

AnoN, WTP & Farnsworth,
Query whether the SJW types are kept insulated in their own little cubicles creating programs and aggravating the non-essential workforce, while the serious hiring and management decisions are made by the engineering teams themselves? I ask this, inasmuch as my elder son–dealt the worst possible hand in the game of “Oppression Poker” by virtue of his birth and upbringing–who has a stellar GPA in two STEM disciplines has had no end of job offers in the defense industry. He’s always dealt with the specific project managers themselves. Never HR.

He’s always dealt with the specific project managers themselves. Never HR.
Anecdotally from a number of friends who work for an assortment of aerospace and/or defense companies in technical (engineering or otherwise) occupations, and that which you describe has been their experience, (which is not to say that the HR pukes don’t come up with ways to harass them with mandatory “diversity” training and the usual SJW gibberish), but HR had bugger all to do with hiring other than processing paperwork for the hire.

Tomorrow we Yanks get turkey & stuffing while you Brits are stuck with “eggs.” We feel for you.
If you’re ever over here in late November, you are all invited to the Pogonippery for Thanksgiving.
I know that our ways are sometimes a bit of a mystery to our cousins in the former colony, so it may assist if I point out that the food rationing in Britain which began with the outbreak of WWII ended in 1954. On the 4th July as it happens, but that’s just co-incidental.

He’s always dealt with the specific project managers themselves. Never HR.
Half the problem is HR filtering the job applicants.
The other half is HR disciplining employees.
The third half is HR conducting “sensitivity” and “bias” training programs.

Thus demonstrating Lindsay’s greatest sin: Exposing the Maoists to public scrutiny and ridicule.
I ought to write an article on the many inexpensive ways one can record one’s surroundings in a virtually undetectable manner. One day everyone will be James O’Keefe out of sheer necessity.
HR had bugger all to do with hiring
They don’t have to have anything to do with hiring to run the company with an iron fist. The last two companies I worked for, engineering firms both, were absolutely dominated by the HR staff. Who were to a woman a bunch of bitter, incompetent and jealous old bints.

And we’re not just talking out of our ass, like we’re smart as fuck, you know what I mean? We read books, and we know shit;
Uhm, yes, you are, in fact, talking out of your ass.
You are, as a group, and as individuals, a strikingly banal gaggle of ass-talkers. In fact, listening to you, I can tell that you can’t actually *do* anything, except talk out of your ass.
You don’t belong in university, at all. The only reason you are in university at all is because it makes a certain class of overly-credentialed white women and soft-as-silky-pajamas white men feel better about themselves. Well, that, and your skin color is currently fashionable. You are a drag on society. You add nothing and subtract a considerable amount.
You don’t belong in a trade school, either. They’d kick you out for being an arrogant pecker-headed moron who can’t learn.
You belong in a care home for illiterate sub-morons.
You deserve to be ignored and/or scorned until you produce something that someone else is willing to pay for. Until then, fuck off.

You don’t belong in university, at all.
The Mao-lings’ fitness for a learning environment does seem rather doubtful, and their behaviour is an insult to those who do belong there, and who’ve worked hard to get there, and who are keen to make the most of their expensive, one-time opportunity. And contrary to the fantasies of many leftist educators, you can’t hammer an above-average IQ into just anyone’s brain.
Or as my dear grey-haired gran used to say, you can’t shovel toothpaste up a hummingbird’s arse.

Half the problem is HR filtering the job applicants.
I can remember HR insisting that I interviewed a batch of applicants from their “preferred supplier”. None of them had any of the basic skills for my bit of the business. I lasted two before throwing my teddies out of the pram.
I later found out that the reason they thought I should insist was that our department’s specialist suppliers didn’t provide diverse enough candidates. (By this point I had a Sikh, two women and even a Kiwi amongst my core team.)

Very few HR people have technical knowledge, which in itself is not that big of a deal but additionally they are increasingly populated with non-techies who have a resentment of technical types.
Which is why I am seriously thinking of going into HR. I reckon a guy with HR qualifications and common sense with a technical background will be as rare as hen’s teeth. Sure, many corporations wouldn’t employ me, but I suspect one or two smaller companies might, particularly start-ups looking to expand and reluctantly conceding they need to hire an HR manager.

Which is why I am seriously thinking of going into HR. I reckon a guy with HR qualifications and common sense with a technical background will be as rare as hen’s teeth
Yes. My observations have had me consider similar career change. But it would have to be similar to as you say, a smaller company where all I did was recruitment. Just going on recruiting trips with HR people in a larger corporation has convinced me that I could not stomach being surrounded by such people 40 hours a week. And I have no desire to push paper around to satisfy government bureaucrats. So of course my options would be quite limited.

Revise and extend: before it goes down the memory hole, the story causing the Campus KGB to destroy the papers at WLU.
RTWT as the kids say, it is actual reporting, just the facts, no opining, and not a damn thing that anyone among the perpetually aggrieved would find offensive or controversial except perhaps their own words in a quote from the WLU “Rainbow Centre” which is the usual “my feels are hurt” SJW boilerplate jabberwocky.

“Characterizing these debates as “polarizing” is a misrepresentation of the incredible inequity on which they are founded, requiring trans people to defend their humanity against arguments that invalidate their experiences of gender. Silencing the voices of trans people in this context only compounds the transphobic violence which has been inherent in this discussion and has created an environment in which trans students fear to speak out against transphobia.

I wish they would come up with a new shitck once in a while. The good news, however, is that WLU may take it in the wallet.

Shepherd said that since the situation was publicized, she has received hundreds of emails from Laurier alumni and other individuals who have allegedly told Shepherd they will be ceasing to provide donations to Laurier and will not be recommending Laurier to potential students.

However, Thoughtcriminal Shepherd goes on with her violent™ heresy.

However, Shepherd said she stands firm in her stance that a university should be able to discuss controversial topics despite the possibility that it might offend an individual or a group of individuals.

She needs to didi mao from that miserable place ASAP.

I ought to write an article on the many inexpensive ways one can record one’s surroundings in a virtually undetectable manner. One day everyone will be James O’Keefe out of sheer necessity.

That sounds well worth reading but you’d need to be very careful, at least in the U.S. Surreptitiously recording people in some jurisdictions can land you on the wrong side of a wiretapping charge (I believe) and looking at a long stretch in the pokey.

And I have no desire to push paper around to satisfy government bureaucrats.

I completely agree, and that’s how the bastards win. They make it too boring for anyone of a normal disposition to stomach and ensure they’re left alone to wreak havoc.

Are we certain about this, though?
Oh, there’d be angry letters. A Twitter campaign at least.

In others, all parties must consent. As you might imagine the latter jurisdictions tend to be (though not exclusively) those with more progressive governments, which don’t care to have their or their allies’ activities subject to public scrutiny
Yep, that’s California, which will applaud a progressive animal-rights groups gathering secret video tapes inside a slaughter house of cows (investigative journalism, you know), but has our toady Attorney General going after pro-life investigative journalists exposing the trafficking in baby parts.

But how often do I get to say “cat lady comeuppance”? 🐱

Surreptitiously recording people in some jurisdictions can land you on the wrong side of a wiretapping charge (I believe) and looking at a long stretch in the pokey.
Better to have incriminating material and not use than not have it when you need it. Given a choice between a spurious “wiretapping” charge and having one’s career, livelihood and potentially freedom destroyed by a malicious monolithic bureaucracy, one sometimes must make hard choices.

Cat lady comeuppance
An odd story, oddly written:
She was allegedly upset with Gov. Abbott for not receiving support from her ex-husband.
Federal investigators say they were able to connect Poff to the packages using pieces of the shipping labels, and also matched cat hair found in the box mailed to President Obama with her cat.
I don’t care how upset she was that the governor of Texas wasn’t supported by her ex-husband, it’s no excuse for her to mail her cat to the president.

sH2: Has anyone tried?

… we know shit
Agreed.

See also, Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky during Oval Office B.J. controversy of the mid-90’s.

Better to have incriminating material and not use than not have it when you need it.

Yes, despite the potential legal difficulties it’s always better to have proof and not need it then to be desperately in need and empty handed. Daniel’s comment prompted the memory that incriminating, but illegally obtained, evidence saved the protagonist’s bacon in Bonfire of the Vanities.