Via Neatorama.

Via Bobby in the comments, Michael Wolff on the visions and follies of former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: 

If selling had been part of his job description, Rusbridger, who never met a pound he had to earn that didn’t disgust him in some visceral way, would have been disqualified long ago. Indeed, his early enthusiasm for the internet – and a continuing principle of faith for him – was that it was free. The corollary, that free had to be supported by advertising, was one of those cause-and-effects that it was Rusbridger’s unique gift to be able to wholly ignore… Having made a personal and moral commitment to free – both as a political principle and as a way to advance the scope of the Guardian’s message – he was confronted, and confounded, by the reality that he had no way to monetise his business.

Readers may recall the Guardian’s short-lived brand expansion into the world of trendy Shoreditch coffee shops, which the paper styled as “the future of open journalism,” a supposedly “data-driven” hub of Fair Trade beverages and online journalistic collaboration, and which was opened without Wi-Fi. 

Blake Neff on destroying children’s futures in the name of “social justice”: 

While the traits listed [being rigorous and punctual, speaking grammatical English] may simply be regarded as positive traits for success in the modern world, Dr Heather Hackman described them as traits chosen and emphasised to favour whites to the detriment of non-white groups, who are forced to assimilate ‘white’ traits such as good discipline and goal orientation or else be left behind. Hackman’s solution, then, is to train teachers to move away from all these aspects of ‘white privilege’ in education. She routinely touted the benefits of collective assessments (measuring student learning at the class level instead of determining whether each student knows the material), as well as eliminating all school grades entirely.

I share the above in case any readers had assumed that Dr Caprice Hollins, who dismisses foresight, diligence and punctuality as “white values,” must be a one-off absurdity. Alas, no.

Your very own coffee shop ambience. // Chewable coffee cubes. // I’m pretty sure they drugged him. // Sensible advice for the inexperienced gardener. // They were photographed on arrival and again after three glasses of wine. // My hovercraft is full of eels. // Talk to a random Swede. // Reminder. // RDS-37. // In a cupboard I have records that sound like this. // Their spinning top tricks are way better than yours. // Well, can you accurately draw a bicycle from memory? (h/t, Damian) // Bathing bears. // Doctor Strange. // Nose hair trimmer of note. // On the economics of tent pole movies. // Oh, this would never get annoying. // This. // This is one of these. (h/t, Coudal) // On “vegan sexuality” and “meat-free sex.” (h/t, Stephen Keating) // Heather Mac Donald on the anti-rational horseshit that is “critical race theory.” Also this. // Could you outrun your own fart? // And finally, conscientiously, he’s just checking on the chickens.

The Guardian is attempting to convince readers that its columnists – those heroic truth-to-power-speakers – are, unlike writers for any other national paper, continually besieged by an ungrateful rabble, and that an alleged avalanche of sexist, racist readers’ comments proves how righteous and heroic said columnists are in their truth-to-power speaking. Amid this tale of adversity and woe, we find the following, by columnist Jessica Valenti:

Imagine going to work every day and walking through a gauntlet of 100 people saying “You’re stupid,” “You’re terrible,” “You suck,” “I can’t believe you get paid for this.” It’s a terrible way to go to work.

As many readers will know, Ms Valenti is famed for her ability to mouth mutually dissonant ideas on a regular basis, thus attracting the mockery that so offends her, and while construing double standards as the pinnacle of righteousness. As, for instance, when invading the privacy of a random male commuter on the Tube by snooping at the contents of his phone, apparently at length, and then condemning his “passive sexism.” Apparently Ms Valenti’s fellow passenger wasn’t reading enough tweets by women and was therefore to be denounced in the pages of a national newspaper. Ms Valenti went on to assert, via Twitter, that on the Tube women have “no expectation of privacy” because they’re seen as “public property.” Unlike male passengers who find themselves sitting next to a nosey Guardian columnist who’s desperate for something to bitch about in the name of feminism.

And this is the same Jessica Valenti who insists that feminists such as herself “absolutely, without a doubt, do not hate men,” before dismissing even the concept of misandry, which she frames in scare quotes, and adding, immediately, “but so what if we did?” And Ms Valenti says this while sharing photos of herself exulting in the sorrows of male readers, and while urging her fellow feminists to buy fashion items that depict men being stabbed for the sin of being romantic. And of course while complaining that some of her readers don’t find her sufficiently gifted and coherent as a cultural commentator.

I don’t want to have a civil discussion. I want to call you assholes.

For those who missed it in the comments, here’s a brief but telling video of a delightful exchange of wits, in which Ms Sarah O’Donnell, a student of creative writing and environmental studies at Denison University, berates a couple of gentlemen ostensibly for their advocacy of free markets, but especially and most passionately for their whiteness and maleness. A combination that is, it turns out, self-evidently sinful.

Even though we’ve seen this kind of airy posturing many times, it’s still quite odd to watch someone who’s basically a walking caricature of haughty, ignorant self-satisfaction. And so, when her belligerence, non sequitur and obnoxious racial comments are questioned, politely, Ms O’Donnell sidesteps explanation and instead resorts to theatrical sighs and dismissive eye-rolling – and further gratuitous insults – as if disdaining white men for being, well, male and white were some kind of moral full stop.

The thing is, when Ms O’Donnell says, “I don’t want to have a civil discussion. I want to call you assholes,” I think that’s a moment of inadvertent truthfulness. Evidently, she does want to abuse people, given the slimmest possible opportunity. The rest, it seems, is pretext, a rickety attempt to justify being obnoxious. In fact, if you assume a malign disposition as the starting point, the incoherent politics starts to make a kind of sense, if only as a vehicle for indulging that disposition and giving it an excuse to be what it is.

I suppose you have to ask what kind of personality would seek out and embrace a dogma that offers endless opportunities to berate and abuse strangers, based only on their most trivial and generic attributes. A dogma that practically obliges you to do this. What kind of person would want to spend time ostentatiously scolding white males for being white and male? More broadly, what kind of psychological misfit would choose to harangue and assault a passing stranger for having the ‘wrong’ kind of hairstyle? And what kind of person spends their afternoon thwarting and intimidating random strangers who are trying to hear a lecture, and making them fear for their safety, to the extent of pushing people underfoot, kicking them repeatedly, and then lying about it?

To my eye at least, and contrary to their imaginings, Ms O’Donnell and her peers are not good people. They’re merely seeking out opportunities for leverage and malice without the usual risk of pushback. Suppose for a moment that I were a malicious little shit and wanted to spend lots of time harassing people, shoving them, scaring them, and mouthing racial abuse. In the real world I’d run a definite risk of censure, social disapproval and possibly a good kicking. But if I were at an Ivy League university and invoked “social justice,” claiming my behaviour was a reaction to some nebulous oppression, there’s a very good chance I’d be accommodated, encouraged, even applauded. And for a certain kind of person, you can see the appeal.

[ Updated via the comments. ]

College Fix on the attempted indoctrination of middle school 12-year-olds: 

A Tampa, Florida, mother was livid after her seventh grade daughter brought home an assignment – from her Spanish class – asking about students’ so-called privilege.

Apparently, being a white-skinned child automatically means you’re “privileged” and by implication guilty. The teacher in question also felt that the 12-year-old children should announce whether they were intersex or “genderqueer.” Somewhat related, the second item here. 

Peter Fricke finds the obligatory campus blather about “diversity” somewhat superficial: 

Unable to prevent Ben Shapiro from speaking at Penn State despite aggressive chanting, student protestors vented their frustration by defacing flyers and throwing papers on the floor.

There’s more, but the self-righteous littering pretty much sums it up. Shapiro’s talk, video of which is here, was on what happens when “diversity” ideology and leftist censoriousness stifle free speech and intellectual pluralism. An irony that may have escaped the protesting students, who were busy feeling pleased with themselves while threatening violence if the talk didn’t stop and drawing swastikas on the face of a Jewish visitor.

And in entirely unrelated news, the Wall Street Journal reports:

More than 40% of Americans who borrowed from the government’s main student-loan program aren’t making payments or are behind on more than $200 billion owed, raising worries that millions of them may never repay.

Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.

It was an educational outing. // Niche research. // Is there nothing trombones can’t do? // Miracle breakthrough in navel lint removal. // Previously, the incredible world of navel fluff and a 25-year collection of it, stored in jars, obviously. // Landmarks under construction. // Man builds own Scarlett Johansson robot. // Wagner with robot hats. // Wasp nest of note. // “The to-and-fro movement of the armchair knits hats for the winter.” // A Tumblr devoted to Rule 34. // Rise of the vegetation. // This. // MondriPong. // Jigsaw puzzle of note. // Japan at speed. // How to make Jenga more exciting. // Nicely done. // Accents of the British Isles. // Blek. // Bomber jackets. // Deconstructed garden. // Face. // And finally, via Damian, this must be one of the later Enid Blyton stories.

Laurie is doing her riot girl routine again:

And inches above, pinned as important, there’s this: 

Some thrilling developments at Edinburgh University:

Ms Imogen Wilson, 22, was subject to a “safe space complaint” over her supposedly “inappropriate hand gestures” during a student council meeting.

Thug life. No, wait. It wasn’t that kind of gesture.  

Ms Wilson said she raised her arm in disagreement.

And such reckless provocation simply will not do.

According to the association’s rules, student council meetings should be held in a “safe space environment,” defined as “a space which is welcoming and safe and includes the prohibition of discriminatory language and actions.” This includes “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement,” or “in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made.”

Ah, the student left and its adorable tendencies.

According to the [students association] safe space rules, only gestures that indicate agreement are “permissible”.

And so,

A complaint was made against Ms Wilson, who was then subjected to a vote on whether she should be removed from the room.

I can’t help thinking these students are just a tad overwound. But at least things can’t get sillier.

Although the vote went in her favour, with 18 people voting to remove her and 33 voting for her to be allowed to remain, she was later threatened with another complaint after shaking her head while someone was speaking.

Burn the witch!

You know, I don’t think I can top this one today.

Update, via the comments:

The perils of identity politics, summarised in two-step Twitter form:

First: 

And then, 13 minutes later: