Elsewhere (263)
Further to the last item here, Andy Ngo on attempts to discuss ideas versus recreational outrage:
“James [Damore] argues, accurately, that there are differences between men and women,” evolutionary biologist Heather Heying said during the panel discussion. “This is a strange position to be in, to be arguing for something that is so universally accepted in biology… You can be irritated by a lot of truths, but taking offence,” — here, Heying paused as hecklers shouted and began to walk out — “is a response that is a rejection of reality.” A non-student protester then yanked the cables from the sound system and shoved the equipment to the ground, breaking an antenna. She was promptly detained by police. “[Damore’s] a piece of shit!” she screamed as she was issued a citation for criminal mischief in the second degree. “Even the women in there have been brainwashed!” Another protester stated: “Nazis are not welcome in civil society.”
Today’s word is projection. Video here.
Nikita Vladimirov on more “social justice” psychodrama:
Activists at the University of Vermont have intensified their protests against the school this week, blocking rush hour traffic on Thursday while demanding social justice related reforms… The protesters remained in place [blocking a busy intersection] for about three hours… causing traffic congestion that eventually began to impact neighbouring towns, and even caused problems for the UVM Medical Centre, creating 15-minute delays for ambulances that were headed to the hospital.
Arrest them, and expel them, and maybe this will stop. Anything less will be regarded as encouragement.
And Dave Huber offers a reminder that opportunist outrage isn’t confined to students:
[University of Delaware law professor,] Sheldon Pollack thought that the academic hoax The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct was pretty damn funny, and decided to send it along to a male colleague and his son. However, that dread auto-fill feature placed the address of a female colleague on the message. That colleague asked what he meant by the message, indicating it was “inappropriate.” Pollack fully explained what had happened and apologised for the error. Half a year later, the erroneous recipient initiated a formal complaint about the matter… Pollack says the university’s human resources department also recommended that he attend sexual harassment counselling as a result of the incident.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
The whole exorcism thing – which appears in the news more and more lately – has always put me off but I’ll still confess, Pogonip, that your three paragraphs shall have me questioning the bulk of literature. And to think the guy writing in Road’s slipcover said Peck had given humanity a gift…
Anyway, Peck nailed evil well enough to stand up to scrutiny, mine certainly included. He may have driven a bad car but we all have our quirks.
The rest of today’s efforts at wrecking English and its punctuation I take full credit for.
Did you mean, “The rest of today’s efforts at wrecking English and its punctuation are that for which I take full credit?”
Ten, I think you can learn a lot more about evil from reading Martin than from Peck. Don’t let Martin’s having been a Jesuit scare you off. He knew he was writing for laymen and worded the material accordingly. We might use the analogy that Peck was writing a comic book, Martin was writing a high-school text. For heavy-duty theology you’re always best off with the Doctors of the Church.
Forehereto whomst do you refer, R.?
“That is a rule, up with which I will not put.”
–Winston Churchill (PBUH)
Heavy-duty theology I try and avoid, P.
Put another way, traditional, churchy morality, despite its aim or intent – which were commonly corrupted – reflect a take on reality just as subsequent secular efforts have. The only legitimate expectation to make on or to have of psychoanalysis, on the other hand – and I say this with WTP’s remarks firmly in mind because I’ve witnessed to what s/he refers – is that it dispenses with the religious overtones. If it works, it works and there’s nothing in theology to inform a view of evil intrinsic to theology. It’s just another lens.
In much the same way G-d is a projection. Not in the absolute sense because there we don’t know and shouldn’t presume to so much as try, the way I figure it, but in the sense that each claim is individual, unique, and therefore incorrect.
I probably miss your drift but I don’t see how theology, much the drain-cleaner kind, inherently informs morals. It and they are a take on them, not the essence of them.
I don’t see how theology, much the drain-cleaner kind, inherently informs morals. It and they are a take on them, not the essence of them.
Isn’t theology an affirmation that morality is transcendent, i.e. that it exists outside of the mind of man, and is therefore not subject to man’s whims or power?
I need to mull on this further, but it seems to get to the place of “Theo-ology,” one must first answer some preliminary questions. Is there a “Theo” to begin with? (Oops. Sentence ended with preposition. No cake for me.) If yes, does it wish to reveal itself? If so, has it done so and in a manner which we are capable of understanding?
If those questions are answered to one’s satisfaction, then one gets to the “Well, what has God said” part, which includes the “How do I live” part, i.e. morality. That is, I act or refrain from acting in certain ways because they are inherently, transcendentally virtuous and not because another human being has the ability to compel my actions or behavior through threat of force.
As you said above, “I probably miss your drift,” so YMMV.
Meaning I, (R. Sherman) miss your (Ten’s) drift. I’m a dullard that way.
What is the drain-cleaner kind of theology? (I envision a product that gets the imps out of your pipes. 😄 )
Well, theology is pretty much intertwined with morality. There were efforts to have morals without God in the 20th century. Proved unworkable. I don’t know anything about the theology of religions other than my own. I do have a work that touches on Tibetan Buddhism, “ Magic and Mystery in Tibet,” by Alexandra David-Neel, which is quite interesting—and also old (early 20th-century), so if the library doesn’t have it you can buy it cheap.
I forgot to mention the grandaddy of all fiendish fun, “ The Exorcist” by William Peter Blatty. Read the 40th anniversary edition, which contaibs a chapter that the tone-deaf publisher cut from the original for reasons of space—and it’s terrifying! They cut that—from a horror story!—and kept an equivalent number of pages of the boorish movie director wandering around annoying everybody. (When the demon killed him, I thought, “Thank you! What took you so long?”)
Er, “contains,” not “contaibs.” The devil made me type it!
Today’s word is symbolism:
Via Instapundit.
Isn’t theology an affirmation that morality is transcendent, i.e. that it exists outside of the mind of man, and is therefore not subject to man’s whims or power?
As a self-reinforcing definition it certainly is such an affirmation, at least as it sees itself – the chicken sandwich essentially assumes chicken. The problem is then obviously universal applicability, and before that, claims on that transcendence: Are we deploying G-d’s morals or are we saying we are in all good faith. And there’s that word.
I don’t mean to say morality is relative; morality is a construct and certainly can be seen as or said to be transcendent. The practical implementation of it is an obvious problem, but so too is the claim on that transcendence.
To illustrate:
I need to mull on this further, but it seems to get to the place of “Theo-ology,” one must first answer some preliminary questions. Is there a “Theo” to begin with? (Oops. Sentence ended with preposition. No cake for me.) If yes, does it wish to reveal itself? If so, has it done so and in a manner which we are capable of understanding?
Agreed; that’s axiomatic.
So, is morality essentially tied to a theology? Not so far and even if we adopt the theo, we’re still subject to the thorny problem of, in effect, defining G-d, something I for one could regard as a valid inclination – a noble determination to swim across the ocean – much more than a philosophically robust endeavor.
Isn’t belief in transcendence and belief in the morality of the Creator its own reward? If faith is the thing, then asserting X onto Y is a construct, not a discovery of fact.
Hunter College is waging a court battle to evict a stubborn student who refuses to leave her dorm room some two years after dropping out.
She’s practicing for a lifetime of parasitism.
What a doll…
https://www.google.com/search?q=sofie+hagen&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBxOG85svZAhVC1WMKHdrUBUIQiR4IxwE&biw=1366&bih=637
Well, theology is pretty much intertwined with morality.
Certainly. At the least*.
There were efforts to have morals without God in the 20th century. Proved unworkable.
That could be an exception fallacy. It’s a conscious virtue to not steal, for example, but stealing can be and has been recognized to be “wrong” simply because of the effects on the victim or the empathy of the witness and his reaction to force. However, the culturally-Christianesque right gets all up in arms when it lifestyle-signals against the left. Suddenly veganism and electricity are tantamount to wrong where formerly God’s own carnism** and combustion received unquestioned cultural approval. That’s that ball of goo that conspires to defeat actual conservatism.
Apparently G-d didn’t give us a reality in which sorting morals would be simple or easy. Or, we’re trying to interpret something we can’t. Or it’s all our own projection*** onto the Universe. The symptoms of the three rather resemble one another.
*Peck’s redeeming premise that was that mental health was the relentless pursuit of truth regardless of cost, and that that cost must be primarily and essentially borne by the pursuit of truth in self. In other words, the polar opposite of progressivism, at least in the vein often commented on by our host and barkeep.
**Wiki: “Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions.”
***YHWH has a rather interesting history, one that just happens to conform to practical local Israelite needs at the time.
a stubborn student who refuses to leave her dorm room some two years after dropping out. Delaware native Lisa S. Palmer — who has not paid rent since 2016
See, this is why we have to have violence. Seriously though, how does this even happen? In two years she has to have left the room at some point. A couple campus cops cannot block her re-entry? The room doesn’t belong to her. She has no business being there. But of course it’s an “educational” institutions. This is what I mean by the abnormal being the true normal and we civilization-leaning types being a natural aberration. Again…Donec educationis delenda est.
Seriously though, how does this even happen?
And for those who may have missed it.
Somewhat related:
Re: Children and their upbringing. Perhaps to no-ones surprise, at least here, a Danish study ,involving 56,000 children in 825 schools, found that ‘Child-Centred’ teaching methods had a negative impact on educational attainment; particularly on the children of less-educated parents.
A couple campus cops cannot block her re-entry?
The hell with campus cops, a couple of regular NYPD to kick the door in and drag her ample self out to the curb, and another to throw her crap out the window.
The Roman Catholic Church regards neither veganism nor the use of electricity as sinful, except if the electricity is used to execute someone. Other than that, the Church is fine with your cooking your carrots on an electric stove. Some of the thousands of Protestant denominations may consider one or the other or both sinful, but since none of them agree with each other, I see no reason you should feel obliged to agree with any of them. You could even, in the grand Protestant tradition, start your own!
An easy introduction to Catholic theology is watching EWTN, if it’s available in your area, or reading their web site if it’s not.
Also on the subject of religious groups, I once met a Monsignor Funk. All I could think of was, “This guy shouldn’t be a Catholic, he should be with the Church of What’s Happenin’ Now!” 😄. Perhaps he can be King George’s Prime Minister of Religion.
Seems like the college could just serve Lisa Palmer with an eviction notice. In all U. S. states, even California, refusing to pay rent is grounds for eviction, unless you are holding your rent in escrow for some reason. But in a regular eviction, once the judge approves the action, the sheriff comes and removes you and your stuff.
In most states she could stop the eviction by paying all the back rent, though, and then stop paying till the next eviction , et cetera.
I just looked at the original article—they ARE evicting her. Sorry.
She sounds rather eccentric—who wants to live in 100 square feet if they don’t have to?
…who wants to live in 100 square feet if they don’t have to?
Hunter is between 68th and 69th and Park and Lexington, if the dorm is there too, it is prime Manhattan real estate, and that 100 sq ft would probably set her back $3K/month if she could even find it. Why the hell they just don’t change the locks when she goes out to her “job” remains a mystery.
Also on the subject of religious groups, I once met a Monsignor Funk.
Cardinal Sin.
I just looked at the original article—they ARE evicting her. Sorry.
See, now you made me read the original article as well:
Oooh! It was in BOLD FACE TYPE. Ooooh!!! Unless someone, at the very moment the article was being written, was physically moving either her and/or her stuff outside the physical premises, ARE is not the word. They have been “ARE evicting her” for months now, apparently. But now I’m even more confused. WTF does this mean “moved her to a wing that’s only occupied by a middle-aged nurse, whom the college is also trying to evict.”???? They have others that they’re “trying’ to evict? and they moved this girl? I’m totally confused on how this happens. Does “they moved her” mean the college hired or used current employees to pick up her stuff and move it to the wing in question? They didn’t just toss it out the door?
No. Apparently not. Seems out here (there?) in reality world, someone can stay in the dorm without meeting these qualifications.
This is insane. You know, decades ago when I was a school lad and they assigned Bartleby, the Scrivener to our class to read I said to myself, this is trouble.
When Eamon Casey resigned as Bishop of Galway when it was revealed he had broken his views of celibacy and got a woman with child, the joke was he fled to Manila, where the Cardinal took his confession. The errant cleric is supposed to have kneeled and began, “Bless me Sin, for I have gathered…”
The college wants to boot a total of nine nurses who were given rooms in various wings of the E. 25th Street building when it was owned by Bellevue Hospital.
The resident nurses include 67-year-old Derek DeFreitas who kept a dormitory room “crash pad” at the address for decades.
There are two issues. The former Hunter College Student is one. Setting aside that, the nurses are another. The key bit of information is that the building in question had prior owner who bestowed the accommodations on the nurses. Presumably, there was some agreement between the hospital and the nurses, which the college now wishes to terminate.
Landlord/Tenant law is different in every state, though I imagine it’s pro-tenant in NY and NYC, the latter of which has rent control, IIRC. Evicting prior tenants can be difficult for new owners, especially if there are long term leases or other agreements involved. We don’t have all the facts regarding that. However, “eviction” is a mult-step process which involves terminating a lease or rental agreement, followed by obtaining a legal judgment for possession of the premises, followed by an execution of that judgment by law enforcement. For commercial tenants, the process can take years. In my jurisdiction, the worst case scenario is about four months for a tenant who is not paying rent. Longer for tenants who are paying but violating some other provision of the lease, and my state is not particularly tenant-friendly.
The former student remains a head-scratcher, however. Still, some goofy judge may have ruled that the college must treat its dorm residents as “tenants” for purposes of the law. Who knows?
In my state paying the back rent stops the eviction and moves everyone back to square one as long as the tenant pays the entire back rent + any fees and penalties the landlord imposed; in this situation they may refuse to accept partial payment. In my state it’s unheard of for a landlord to evict anyone, no matter how objectionable, for anything other than non-payment. I don’t know if this is because of simple greed, or because it’s too difficult, or both.
Understand the differences between the student (dorm) and the nurses (proper tenants), but 67-year-old Derek DeFreitas has been there for DECADES. Yet how does a university, or even worse a city/state of many universities, with all its “smart” people on staff either manage to hire such incompetent lawyers and/or be so incompetent themselves as to let such a thing go on with dorm students and the laws pertaining to such? By the very nature of dorms, they need to be turned over each year to make room for new students. What idiocy allows legal definition of dorm renter come anywhere near the classification of apartment tenant? How many “educated”, “smart” people have to be asleep at the switch to allow this to happen?
Much like education, our country spends GAZILLIONS of dollars on our legal system. Probably in the neighborhood of health care, if legal costs of health care were properly counted as legal costs. And what we get for it is, IMNSHO, shit. Evicting a non-paying tenant is not rocket science. Yes, it gets complicated. But no way should such things drag on for DECADES. At some point the law ceases to be law and starts to become a collection of words consisting of nothing more than a delivery system for anarchy.
. . . The errant cleric is supposed to have kneeled and began, “Bless me Sin, for I have gathered…”
Did have to stare at that fer a moment.
“Bless me Sin, for I have fathered…”
Yes, that Preview button down there is your friend . . .
You could even, in the grand Protestant tradition, start your own!
Heh. When I was too tiny to notice I asked my grandfather, an old country immigrant possessing membership in a church Christian Layman’s League, why there were so many variants of Protestantism and why they all saw fit, as respective expressions of their unassailable knowledge of G-d, to splinter and then resume warring about His aspect. (Can I say “His” on this thing? Is there a progressive God Xe or something?)
Like the proverbial Eastern monk, he only smiled at my grasshopper, although in his case I’m still not sure if it was the enlightenment manifesting.
More generally, it appears that theology is per se the recorded exploration of what man would purport to realize and do if G-d existed. In other words, it could be that the best argument against atheism is that if G-d doesn’t exist, how did man come to project such a fantastically complex elaboration of all aspects of his relationship with One. It’s as if the Darwin’s Universe evolved to produce G-d.
Let Calvin chew on that…
This will be a great thing…I’m sure…
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10580
@WTP
I may have misread the article, but I thought the guy was one of the hold-over nurses who had a place in the building when it was a hospital and not a student.
RSherm,
Yeah, I’m not too clear myself now. Not sure if you reference this article or the next click through specific to DeFrietas. Here’s from the article specific to him:
Bah, bloody phone keyboards. Small keys, big fingers…
I assumed he was typing from a camp bed in the neighbour’s garage.
Ugly divorce. The Battle of Chicken Valley was one of many skirmishes culminating in Operation “I hate this house, I hate this land, I hate this life, and I especially hate you.” I eventually won, but only at great cost.
Jesus Christ, most modern mothers don’t understand this with kids either!
As a single guy approaching middle age (implying that my dating pool contains a large number of single mothers) I am coming to the realization that women make babies. Which is to say, without a firm, fair hand they stay babies.