Elsewhere (260)
Roger Kimball on “shitholes” and theatrical indignation:
And here we come to a second curiosity in the preening and ecstatic outrage over the president’s comment. Everyone, near enough, knows that he was telling a home truth. It was outrageous not because he said something crude that was untrue. Quite the contrary: it was outrageous precisely because it was true but intolerable to progressive sensitivities. In other words, the potency of taboo is still strong in our superficially rational culture. There are some things — quite a few, actually, and the list keeps growing — about which one cannot speak the truth or, in many cases, even raise as a subject for discussion without violating the unspoken pact of liberal sanctimoniousness. Donald Trump, of course, does this regularly, delightedly.
Tim Newman on the same:
Trump’s comments are pretty innocuous to anyone who is not a deranged anti-Trumper or a fully paid-up member of the media or political establishments. He’s asked the question millions of people across America and Europe have been asking for years, waiting in vain for their leaders to do so. And now he has, and the reason his opponents have gone apoplectic is because they know how much this will resonate with ordinary people they wish didn’t exist. That, and they wish to virtue-signal in order to keep their places in what they think is polite society.
And Mitchell Gunter on the posturing of Antifa – and sociopathy as a lifestyle choice:
“How about #LawEnforcementIncinerationDay,” the group Autonomous Student Network (ASN) Austin tweeted on January 9, accompanied by a photo of a policeman engulfed in flames. “We see the state as integral to all forms of domination. We see police as an extension of this and refuse any negotiation with the cops.” According to Time, the unidentified 41-year-old officer depicted in the photo was patrolling the streets of Paris, France on May 1, 2017 — otherwise known as “May Day,” a date associated with violent protests — when he was struck by a Molotov cocktail that inflicted third-degree burns.
ASN Austin describes itself as “an organisation that seeks to promote student autonomy through direct action tactics.” “We are dedicated to the complete abolition of all systems of domination and hierarchy. We stand absolutely against white supremacy, settler colonialism, cisheteropatriarchy, ableism, the state, and capitalism as systems which organise violent and hierarchical relationships between social groups,” the group declares… ASN Austin disavows any specific “vision of what alternatives we want to build,” instead saying that it aims to “radicalise student activism on campus beyond the pathetic spectacle of chants and protests that are so non-disruptive to those in power.” The description concludes with a call to “Spread Anarchy, Live Communism!”
As a pile of language, it’s a little boggling. But apparently, autonomy is to be achieved via learned incoherence, dogmatic groupthink and subordination to a cult dynamic. And the way to “abolish systems of domination and hierarchy” is to exult in mob violence, so coyly implied, and thereby the domination of others. It’s also unclear how anarchy and communism might coexist, beyond a pretext for thuggery, as the students disavow any particulars to that effect. Perhaps answers will spontaneously emerge or be summoned into being, provided enough random women are surrounded and assaulted, and provided we learn to laugh at people who’ve been doused with accelerant and set on fire.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
What the world has been waiting for…
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10377
These people are insane.
Or malevolent. Or both. Either way, proximity is best avoided.
These people are insane.
Perhaps insane, but also bereft any any capability for original thought.
Like damn near every one of these clowns who ruin every course with their nonsense.
Dutt-Ballerstadt’s “teaching” and “scholarly” interests, QED
Professor Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt? An offshoot of the great Hampstead Heath Dutt-Paukers perhaps?
…and behaviours such as argumentation, silence, and leaving…
Anything that is not submission is haram.
An offshoot of the great Hampstead Heath Dutt-Paukers perhaps?
Possible, there is a video in which she claims to have been raised in Calcutta (or Bombay – somewhere in India) did the Dutts have anyone in colonial service and crossbreed with Ballerstadts, whoever they are, or is she just married to one ?
These people are insane.
One thing is now clear in all that murk, “White Supremacist!” is the new “Fascist!”, as meaningless epithet du jour.
Anything that is not submission is haram.
Essentially, yes. The argument – such as it is – amounts to little more than endless rephrasing of the same begged question, i.e., whitey’s presumed guilt. As scholarship, it’s laughable; but the psychology is revealing. It’s a dynamic I’d describe as abusive.
Hence malevolent.
I see, rioting is now “freedom of expression”, and standing by doing nothing is a “friendly referee”.
Scuzzzii?!?!?!?!?!?!!????
Quite rather obviously, rioting is rioting—things broken, major disruption, etc.—, where an equally obviously different occurrence of a symbolic arrest is merely a very emphatic statement that does involves freedom of expression and also does allow the police to peacefully get their jobs done. Unlike your apparent fantasy of all destruction all the time, and as a part of the freedom of expression—I’m writing from here in the U.S., by the way—the one getting arrested is free to make the particular point, and the police are indeed free to make the actual arrest—so, also, as the actual descriptions note, there is nothing symbolic about the arrest, just the lack of unneeded animosity.
As David points out, Thing is, there are types of personalities that get drawn to these radical dramas, and none of them are the kind of personalities you’d want your children to develop., and you’re definitely going there . . . .
So when you quote Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how . . ., the actual article you didn’t bother to link to appears to be an AP report.
Among the facts very clearly stated in that report—but yes, I realize that reality would be inconvenient to your attempted narrative—are;
Oops. The police actually do something.
Oops, again, contrary to what you want to claim, the police take action.
Oh, yes, what is also going on that you somehow neglect to note is that at the Shapiro talk in Berkeley, there were no issues with the planned and prepared event.
So of what you’re waving about . . . Oh, dear, your attempted narrative is again derailed by reality.
. . . so what the peaceful referees were working with was on the fly, as events occurred, y’know, basic police work.
You should introduce yourself to a cop sometime. Stop seeing cops as clowns. Actually find out what police experience when doing the job.
That video you cite—again, completely out of context, with zero explanations, and completely undermining your attempt at an argument—is hysterical. I know that intersection, been through there many times, and what your own video shows is a pair of cops, dead calm, totally professional, as whoever is doing the questioning is exactly as you are now. And just as I’m doing, I see the the cop being quite matter of fact, noting that the claimed objections and their source are totally full of it.
As the professional police officer points out; Uh huh, okay, And?. I ask that as well.
BTW, nice video of the idiocy of a symbolic arrest, one almost has to wonder if the 5-0 had cue cards given to them by the “antifa” nitwits.
Well, no, that wasn’t a symbolic variety of actual arrest, that was the standard variety of an actual arrest. You’re thinking like the Keystone Cops, so I gave you a video. Even the video states that what is occurring is Police Remove Antifa power at Berkeley by forcing them to remove masks or go to jail.
Again, you and your parallel AntiFirstAmendment associates may demand that random people must get hit by a two by four, but apparently what irritates you is that unlike what your lot insist, professionals and other adults operate in reality and actually pay attention to what actually needs to be done.
What you’re broadcasting is that your fantasy is to have Heinrich Himmler strutting around in a uniform so that you can salute and follow ‘im about.
I also understand that what is pissing you off is that actual police reality tends to be more Sam Vimes.
Or if you prefer an actual cop doing actual police work who you can meet in person—remember, this is taking place here in the U.S.—there is Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood . . .
Hence malevolent.
Whereas there is no argument some of the ringleaders are malevolent, I think the vast majority, particularly in the Clown Quarter, are simply following the trend du jour as it takes a modicum of intelligence and original thought to be malevolent, and as has been shown regularly and frequently in these pages, there is a dearth of that.
Straight out of “central casting”, as one of Prof Reynolds’ readers noted:
Another “woke”, but suspiciously pale “PoC”.
as it takes a modicum of intelligence and original thought to be malevolent,
Oh, I’m pretty sure dumb malevolence is a thing that exists.
And if your stupefying worldview amounts to Honky Guilt In All Directions™, it’s pretty hostile.
What happened to the humanities is partially a result of the ‘need’ for original research/scholarship(t) in order to fulfill the requirements for a PhD.
Far more doctorates are granted than are possibly needed in order that tenured faculty have a sufficient supply of academic slave labor to perform the scut work of teaching undergrad classes. This army of drones require a neverending supply of dissertation topics, and since everything sane has already been said about the authors of the ‘canon’ by previous generations of scholars far more intelligent than the current bunch they are perforce left with the unenviable choice of ‘studying’ the output of contempory writers who have not been winnowed by the passage of time. Couple that with Sturgeon’s Revelation that “90% of everything is crap” and well, Bob’s your uncle.
This, of course, applies to the honest students, next add in the other 95% of posturing buffoons and liars for the rest of the story.
What happened to the humanities is partially a result of the ‘need’ for original research/scholarship(t) in order to fulfill the requirements for a PhD.
Bingo.
A paper titled The Elite Master got written up around 2011. Apparently the first coding boot camps started up the same year.
“Why is them always so angry?”
This is a college professor?
Now, everyone, stiffen the sinews and scroll back up to the photo Norman posted.
First, look at her right eye, then at her left.
I apologise for any trauma caused as you realise what you are looking at. David, I am sure, has a fainting couch. And sherry.
Another “woke”, but suspiciously pale “PoC”.
I believe she claims “blackness” because of being part India Indian.
This is a college professor?
Proper grammar be racist.
What happened to the humanities is partially a result of the ‘need’ for original research/scholarship(t) in order to fulfill the requirements for a PhD.
exactly what I pointed out a few days ago…
This is proof that we have way too many PhD candidates. All of the good and worthwhile dissertation topics were covered years ago, but we keep producing more PhD candidates. So, they keep digging for more topics, and we end up getting drivel such as this asshat has produced.
Posted by: champ | January 11, 2018 at 00:50
I thought the Left wanted firearms confiscated?
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/antifa-the-hard-lefts-call-to-arms/ar-AAuFTq9?li=AAavLaF&ocid=ientp
“Why is them always so angry?”
She do not no de wae.
In the immortal words of Salt-N-Pepa, “Let’s talk about sex.”
Jim Goad on shitholes. Warning: contains unflattering facts.
I spent a week in Jakarta once. I always refer to it as a shithole of a place, because it was. It smelt like one too. I’m with the Donald on this one. the indignation from the liberals was hilarious. Hilarious because most of us agree with Trump.
Dr Evil,
There was once a blog called “Turd World” (or something like that), authored by a US State Department employee stationed in Jakarta. He claimed that the very first thing one notices when one steps off the plane is the overpowering stench of an open sewer – and it was something he noticed in a distressing number of different “Third World” capitals.
the indignation from the liberals was hilarious.
Probably the best thing you can read about the whole shithole brouhaha.
Liked Larry Elder’s take on the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yCwIwpCsVw
In the immortal words of Salt-N-Pepa, “Let’s talk about sex.”
“It’s a woman’s penis”.
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
“It’s a woman’s penis”.
On the subject of trans tolerance and compelled dishonesty, this, by Harvey Jeni, seems close to the nub of it:
It’s worth reading in full, I think. The references to Celebrity Big Brother, which I haven’t watched, are interesting.
this level of pretence corrupts human relationships and ultimately causes more distress than it relieves
Deception undermines trust, and without trust, societies become very nasty places. I don’t much care for a society where I can’t be sure of the sex of any given individual I see because I might be seeing falsified visual cues. As if there weren’t *enough* reasons to be paranoid about approaching young women, now I have to worry that they are not a women at all.
When someone invents a remote chromosome scanner, he’ll make serious bank.
“not women”. I edited the sentence to change a singular to a plural and I missed that “a”. Mea culpa.
Mea culpa.
[ Henchlesbians confiscate jabrwok’s comfy chair and replace it with a hard, rickety stool. ]
On the subject of…compelled dishonesty…
Seeing as this place has its own memes (such as the Iowahawk institution-gutting one), I rather think this calls for the Dalrymple one:
a hard, rickety stool
I deserve no less. *hangs head in shame and eats a pickled egg*.
O/T more cultural Marxism
http://www.williamofockham.com/2018/01/17/even-the-best-girls-are-boys/
I don’t much care for a society where I can’t be sure of the sex of any given individual I see because I might be seeing falsified visual cues.
I don’t much care if I’m seeing falsified visual cues, so long as they are credible. I’ve survived years surrounded by women with hair dye and extensions, padded brassieres, high heels, and the like. I’ve known a few men and women who took voice lessons to eliminate their West Virginia or South Carolina or Long Island accents. None of this mattered, because in all cases, the “deception” was consistent with the image that these people wanted to project.
If you look like a woman, dress like a woman, speak like a woman, and in every outward aspect present yourself as a woman, then I really couldn’t care less whether your sexual plumbing is internal or external. I won’t think twice seeing you walk out of the ladies’ room, because I’ll have no reason to think you’re anything but. That being said, if you can’t be bothered to make the effort to appear as what you want the rest of us to think you are, then I can’t be bothered to make the effort to use whatever non-standard pronoun you prefer, no matter how loudly you insist.
Similarly, if you’re going to go out of your way to make yourself androgynous, just so that you can jump on anybody who makes the wrong assumption, you can also fuck right off. Androgyny might have been cute when it was used for artistic purposes, but turning it into a cudgel with which to beat hapless bystanders isn’t an innovation with which I’m going to go along.
Consider for a moment the absurdity of a brunette insisting that you call her a redhead, even though she’d made no attempt at dyeing her hair. Why should we waste any time and effort on being polite to those who make the same absurd insistence about their sex? The very least they could do is make the effort credibly to resemble whatever it is they insist the rest of us treat them as. Anything else is just a naked attempt at gaslighting the normals.
While we’re on the subject, can we also lose the pretense of calling elected officials “The Honorable So-and-so”? Those bastards stopped pretending ages ago…
I don’t much care if I’m seeing falsified visual cues, so long as they are credible.
It would be less of an issue (though still annoying) were I married. As I’m not, and not yet entirely without hope of someday fathering children, the idea that I can’t be certain that something that looks like a woman actually *is*, is rather discouraging. What that uncertainty will do to the current generation of youngsters doesn’t bear thinking about.
I recall, though can’t cite, a story about a young man in a relationship with what he thought was a young woman. The sister of his object of interest informed him that he was, in fact, dating a man. Upon confronting the alleged woman he was told that yes, that was true, and the boyfriend would’ve been informed after consummating the relationship (presumably this was a post-operative individual). IIRC, the relationship promptly ended, the boyfriend began dating the sister, eventually married her and started a family with her. The parents, who had sided with their son and renounced their daughter and her new husband, found that they were not welcome to visit their grandchildren (likely the only ones they would ever have).
I wish I could find that story again.
a hard, rickety stool
I deserve no less. *hangs head in shame and eats a pickled egg*.
I really don’t like seeing ‘pickled egg’ and ‘stool’ in the same sentence on this site.
I really don’t like seeing ‘pickled egg’ and ‘stool’ in the same sentence on this site.
You know, I’ve been trying to keep the concept of hard, rickety stools out of my head for two-three days now. You’re not helping. Yes, yes. Credit note only.