Elsewhere (293)
Daniel McGraw on the self-inflicted sorrows of Oberlin College:
Activists on campus immediately concluded the arrest of the three students was evidence of racial profiling, which suggests an assumption that either the students were falsely accused on account of their race, or that Gibson’s [Bakery and Market] was happy to allow whites to shoplift but drew the line at blacks. I heard versions of these two theories during interviews I conducted with dozens of the student protesters. But, despite the students’ claims and the vehemence of the language with which they were made, police and others testified that there had been no complaints or allegations of racism made against the family business since it opened in 1885. Not one. […]
As the protests continued, Gibson’s annual revenue almost halved… Eight full-time employees were reduced to one, and family members have had to forego their salaries (and still do, pending the receipt of damages) since the protests began. The Gibson family testified that all they wanted was for Oberlin College to send an email to the community affirming that Gibson’s was not racist and to move on. But the school refused and doubled down on its support for the protesters and their defamatory allegations.
Oberlin’s decision to double-down seems in part an attempt to deflect Mao-ling discontent at the college’s own supposed sins of “imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy.” Having encouraged students to cultivate woke psychodramas at every turn, the ensuing hostility had to be pointed somewhere. Which rather speaks to the character of those involved.
David Gibson, owner of the besieged bakery, shares his account of events here:
Police arrested the student. But the next day, hundreds of people gathered in protest. From bullhorns they called for a boycott. The sidewalk and park across the street from our store were filled with protesters holding signs labelling us racists and white supremacists. The arrest, they said, was the result of racial profiling. The narrative was set and there was no combating it… The shoplifter confessed to his crime and said the arrest wasn’t racially motivated. But Oberlin College refused to help set the record straight by issuing a public statement that our family is not racist and does not have a history of racial profiling or discrimination. The damage had been done. And the truth seemed irrelevant.
Inevitably, Oberlin’s student newspaper lays blame elsewhere, denouncing the media and an “increasingly authoritarian country” – one in which “sustained and brave student activism” – i.e., vindictive hysteria and attempting to destroy the livelihoods of entirely innocent people – might become more difficult and even have consequences. At which point, the words that come to mind are lefties project.
The student editorial is an exercise in double-think and demonstrable lies (notably regarding the involvement of senior administrator Meredith Raimondo). The authors are careful not to mention that the three students in question all pleaded guilty and admitted in court that their being apprehended for shoplifting, and the subsequent scuffle, had nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed racism of bakery employees. Indeed, the editorial even implies that guilt is not a “salient question.” Presumably, the protestors and their enablers should be able to wreck the lives and reputations of anyone they choose, regardless of facts.
It’s worth noting that Oberlin College is the Clown Quarter writ large, a leftist fiefdom, where woke psychodramas are normative, encouraged and institutional. And hence the delinquency and moral inversion – the ripened fruit of all that leftist psychology. Such that students were encouraged by staff to side with a trio of physically aggressive shoplifters – people stealing for fun – and to actively destroy the livelihood of a baker who would rather not be preyed upon by thieves. The expectation of lawfulness, of common civility, being repaid with libel, harassment and ruin. Activities that Oberlin’s administrators were happy to enable, using college funds, and often with bizarrely adolescent behaviour of their own.
As long-time readers will know, Oberlin has been mentioned here before, as when college staff were found to be complicit in fake “hate crimes” that were actually committed by leftwing student activists. Though my favourite incident was when one of Oberlin’s student Mao-lings, a lady named Della Kurzer-Zlotnick, was emotionally devastated by a two-letter word that was apparently unknown to her, and which she later described as “violent and triggering language.”
Tuition at Oberlin is $56,000 a year.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
normal people, not so much
I suspect there’s rather a lot of normal people here on this blog that are more like Charles Murray or Andy Ngo or Jenn Smith than Chuck Norris and who would like to go peacefully about their business without being attacked, injured and sent to hospital.
The Internet Tough Guy routine isn’t convincing anybody. Real life isn’t a video game, and a violent street confrontation isn’t going to turn into SmashTV! just because you beat your chest and swagger. If two US Marines can get curb-stomped by Antifa, I’m going to go with “normal people should consider antifa dangerous”.
By uptight knitting enthusiasts.
Knitting enthusiasts have been uptight since before Dickens. So much so, that it’s a cliche.
It’s amazing how much we discount the past. Every form of human evil/oddity we see today has already been captured by the likes of Dickens and before him Shakespeare and before him the Greeks. Yet we’re all so suprised when an example resurfaces and our hubris makes us believe it’s all happening for the first time.
From a comment on the previous thread on how SJWs don’t understand Karl Popper and here we have the ostensible “politics free” fiber community of Knitty supporting Ravelry cuz we all know that Trump and 63 million voters are Nazis.
It’s interesting that there’s no cartoon graphic showing what happens when one group conrols an ever changing “orthodoxy of truth.” Authoritarianism is authoritarianism whether it comes from the right or the left. Fascism and Socialism/Communism are two sides of the same coin.
…I’m going to go with “normal people should consider antifa dangerous”.
You can cede them all the power you want, but meanwhile, in your neck of the continent, what happens when one of their brave dangerous lot forgets their prime directive about numbers. It is also interesting what happens to these bold fighters when even your police decide not to put up with their crap.
Well, this discussion is getting a bit circular. Maybe we should all just agree to abide by the (Taira) Shigetsuke principle: avoid crowds and disturbances. It was good advice 400 years ago & it’s good advice today.
Farnsworth, I made your Spam recipe again the other day. Yum.
One-word oxymoron: polyfidelitous. Yep, it’s another self-justifying polyamorite. Someone hit that big red Tim Newman alarm button.
Very important advice for you, gentlemen. Take notes:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/feeling-like-a-man-during-your-period/
Someone hit that big red Tim Newman alarm button.
I though it was like a bat-signal.
Maybe we should all just agree to abide by the (Taira) Shigetsuke principle: avoid crowds and disturbances.
That’s excellent advice. I hate crowds at the best of times, even when they’re peaceful. I’ve learned to avoid them, especially in Paris when the gilets jaunes were kicking off. And having seen an African mob form, they are *very* frightening. So yes, avoid crowds at all times.
Someone hit that big red Tim Newman alarm button.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/7234e4d3-53dc-4f7c-b057-67e7b12d56d0
Fascism and Socialism/Communism are two sides of the same coin.
More like one side. While Fascism might’ve been to the right of Stalin, that hardly makes it “right wing” in any realistic sense. The only functional difference of which I’m aware is that Fascism used Nationalism as its rallying cry, rather than Class. Otherwise the two ideologies are pretty much indistinguishable.
More like one side.
Agreed. The chief differences are (1) Communism calls for state ownership of all economic activity while fascism allows private ownership but with pervasive and stringent state control. (2) Communism rallies “the people” around the idea of “class” while fascism uses race, ethnicity, and more recently sex and gender and everything else that can be made use of. (And both tend toward viciously violent treatment of enemy classes or races or whatever.)
Fascism is national in scope. Communism international. When the former expands, it does so for the purpose of conquest via eradication, the latter for conquest via submission.
Fascism is national in scope. Communism international. When the former expands, it does so for the purpose of conquest via eradication, the latter for conquest via submission.
Pretty much a difference without distinction. Much like “owns vs. controls”. Ownership *means* control. If you can’t control something, you don’t really own it.
As for the international vs. national natures of the two philosophies, again, de facto no difference. The Soviets wanted to conquer the world for the dictatorship of the proletariat while the Fascists wanted to conquer the world for national aggrandizement and lebensraum. Conquest is pretty much baked in to both. Tyrannies don’t like having competition.
Ownership *means* control. If you can’t control something, you don’t really own it.
Agree, hence my differences with libertarians (so-called) on eminent domain or real estate law.
Pretty much a difference without distinction.
In practice, yes. Philosophically, no. Communism is a smiley face put on what always turns out to be fascism in the end. Communism has an evangelical aspect to it, yet every communist society ends up spreading its own culture, language, etc. regardless of the diversity it pretends to celebrate or at the very least tolerate. So in actual practice it is almost the same as fascism. Yet this is communism’s most fundamental weakness and why communist societies fail time and time again. Fascist (state-focused/nationalistic socialism) does manage to stumble along so long as it stays within its own borders and doesn’t pick fights with societies it cannot decisively conquer. Fascism requires a significant amount of similar outlook and behavior of its people, yet being a more homogeneous society, this is somewhat workable. Fascism is fundamentally the same tribalism social animals, primarily man, have practiced since the dawn of mammals, just on a broader geographic footprint.
Bah…rereading the above, that should be:
FascismSocialism requires a significant amount of similar outlook and behavior of its people,yetwith fascism being implemented in a more homogeneous society, this is somewhat workable.…or something like that….
Well we may end up paying the tuition of these students. That makes me feel…things.
“Communism is a smiley face put on what always turns out to be fascism in the end.”
At one time Communists were called Red Fascists. Maybe we should revive that terminology.
that’s before you even get to the inflammatory question of who would be eligible for such a mission under the definition of “woman”.
Ruh-roh, writer Stephanie Merritt should hope she and her scare quotes don’t come to the attention of Vivian Kane.
@LoLKitten
Very important advice for you, gentlemen. Take notes:
“>https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/feeling-like-a-man-during-your-period/
Obviously mad, as it’s EF, but the thing I was confused about was this- the author writes in such a female voice I was genuinely confused as to the point of the article until she wrote ‘as a trans man’. Unusually, this took a while to happen, so I was really quite discombobulated, especially because- as an actual man- I would have had none of the reactions that the author had to any of the circumstances.
I’ve never agonised over whether to take pain relief, never felt the need to pretend I’ve been wounded to somehow macho-up a malady (how that fits with the screed about toxic masculinity a bit further down the page, I have no idea), and never once tried to rationalise bleeding from a part of my body that shouldn’t be there (In other words, I’ve never provoked a dissociative mental illness in myself to make me look more interesting).
I almost want to write to the author and tell them that- despite the therapy and hormones and all that stuff- they’ve completely missed the essence of masculinity, which is to just keep buggerring on, quietly doing what you do, and not make a giant fuss by screaming like a schoolgirl about inconsequential shit whilst playing dress-up.
Oh, and what lunacy is this (again from EF, and concerning Man-struation)?
Viable ovaries do not a woman make.
Ask any infertile woman, menopausal woman, female survivor of ovarian cancer, or woman who has undergone a hysterectomy.
And if viable ovaries don’t make a woman a woman, then viable ovaries don’t make a man a woman.
There’s something in that last sentence that sprains my mind.
It’s like a syllogism from someone with a brain injury.
If bananas don’t make banana palms a banana palm, then bananas don’t make a pineapple a banana palm?