The Violation Of Others
And in expensive and statusful education news:
It’s protest, you hear. Albeit of a gratuitous and self-serving kind.
Because in order to titillate pinhead students and their pinhead lecturers, you need to frame selfishness and moral squalor as sexy and upscale, and ever-so daring. It’s “radical ethics,” you see.
Unlike modish Manhattan universities that applaud themselves as “a place for fearless progress,” and whose lecturers glamourise shoplifting and the self-satisfied violation of other, better people.
The seminar, since you ask, is the work of Cresa Pugh, a woman who lives in Brooklyn, obviously, and who boasts of “decolonising” and “interrogating” many things, while arriving at entirely predictable conclusions.
You see, being a grubby, antisocial prick and stealing from a library or grocery store is giving it to the man, man.
At which point, readers are invited to imagine Ms Pugh being robbed in broad daylight – a bag-snatching or phone-snatching or possibly a mugging – and her subsequent search for some aesthetic in the experience.
And because sometimes the punchlines just write themselves:
Previously – on needless, habitual mooching as a radical lifestyle thang.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
[ Muffled chuckling, clicks schedule. ]
24 hour rule, but it would be similar to the cretin who shot the kids recently.
Hybristophilia
The usual suspects have done as expected, but best of all for me was the brains trust that tweeted ‘no-one mourns the wicked’, which proved that if he’d seen the musical or film, he didn’t understand it at all…
It’s just as likely one of the ATF agents dropped some ammo.
Money was describing himself.
She was fired.
“Canoeing through other people’s excrement since 2007”
[ Slides inadequately wiped canoe paddle to Rafi. ]
[ Washes hands thoroughly. ]
I wonder what would happen if, when one of these people who consider a conservative debater a mortal threat to the Republic, stood up at the microphone. I wonder what would happen — not that I’m advocating for it, mind you — that someone let off a few firecrackers. Maybe three, spaced equally apart.
And I also wonder if it’s considered hate speech to suggest that people who advocate violence as a political solution be forced to realize that they too are vulnerable to the same final solution.
It certainly beats the alternative.
Agree on both ends of the 24-hour rule thing. On the one hand it is important, yet also difficult, to refrain from taking initial information to seriously or accepting it too deeply. OTOH, there is nothing wrong with early speculation. Especially if you keep in mind that it’s speculative. Those who keep their “mouths shut but minds open” are piggybacking their later perceptions on the backs of those who dared to speculate. When they later jump in with their cowardly superiority, it kinda pisses me off. Especially when the f****g lawyers do it. As time eventually reveals more information there is never a distinct point when you would know when you had the full, or as full as necessary, picture. That point is only clear, if ever, with 20/20 hindsight.
Oh really now? Just as likely? It is just as likely that the shooter got away and the ATF has conjured up some elaborate conspiracy in just 12 hours that they are hoping will stand up in court months from now in order to pin this on some antifa-trannie conspiracy, THAT is just as likely as they are actually uncovering real evidence from a real crime scene? Like p(A)=0.5 and p(B)=0.5? Or do you mean some other definition of “just as likely”? Like George, I am curious. Because, bookmark.
My first thought on hearing of the shooting was the shooter was trantifa.
The ATF has a long history of deception & grandstanding, often both at the same time. All government agencies should be treated with skepticism, but the ATF has earned outright distrust.