Friday, October 24, 2014

Dude Calls For Secession Of SC, GA, FL; New Country To Be Named 'Reagan'

Whelp

(via Reddit)

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Brian Barbour On The Carolina AFAM Scandal

   This seems right to me.
   In fact, I'd go farther: I suspect that the NCAA hammer is going to come down hard on both football and women's basketball. Men's hoops is probably safe. The interactions there were tenuous, and Roy smelled a rat early on, and issued an edict to the advisers to make sure basketball players were not being directed toward AFAM. Because race is in play, it doesn't seem feasible that he could have done anything stronger than that (e.g. forbidding players from taking AFAM courses).

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

More Gamergate

Another balanced discussion.

Wainstein Report On UNC AFAM Scandal Released

   Whelp, that was ******* painful...
   Two people in one department gave Carolina a black eye that will take years to go away. [Actually: some advisers were in on this too.]  
   Fortunately, men's hoops was not implicated. Unfortunately, our despicable neighbors in Raleigh and Durham will keep yakking about this for years to come. On the bright side, few other universities would have been so willing to dig down into the depths of their athletic programs...  On the not-bright-side, what was revealed was not particularly pretty.
   Sadly, Jan Boxill comes off looking really bad in all of this. I know her personally, and she's a great person, and I'm sad to see her coming off so badly. And what looks like her engaging in special pleading for athletes is actually consistent with her general policy of compassion for all students... Professors often have such discussions with each other...here's this student...there are special circumstances x, y, and z...technically I should give them an n...what do you think?  I'm not condoning her actions, but it's very, very common for professors to be lenient in their grading...it's not something limited to athletics. [Also: the notorious email was about helping a former athlete graduate, not keeping a current athlete eligible. So that's something.]
   But, at least this was all on the not-terribly-awful side, men's hoops was largely exonerated, and we can get on with the business of whupping some butt on the hardwood.
   In general, I'm very much against politicized, boutique courses and departments like AFAM...but I'll let that go for the time being...

   Here, incidentally, is the Wainstein report. And big props to Kenneth Wainstein for taking on this unenviable task--and props to Carolina for hiring him.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Gawker: "The White Racial Slur We've All Been Waiting For"

   Wow, these people really are nauseatingly idiotic.  There's a whole lot that's repulsive here, and representative of the trendy left--the emphasis on insulting whites, males, and heterosexuals (and especially white, male, heterosexuals) over helping disadvantaged groups, the bizarre obsession with words and superficial linguistic silliness, the tin ear for language despite being obsessed with it, the inability to reason clearly, the passionate devotion to double standards, the link between SJW/neo-PCs and the weaker regions of the humanities and social sciences...
   ...but really, it's the abuse of academia for the purposes of political indoctrination that the most nauseating aspect of this nauseating stew of nauseating moonbattery.  
   Yeah, I know...it's Gawker... It's easy to laugh off...but before you do so, just briefly reflect on the fact that there are real professors out there devoted to making their classrooms into pseudo-academic approximations of re-education camp...
   
   Of course a liberal is someone who is too open-minded to take his own side in an argument...so I do feel compelled to say that I think a lot of folks might learn something from being on the wrong end of a really stinging prejudicial term... But that grain of truth doesn't seem to me to be nearly weighty enough to constitute a defense of the BS on the other end of that link... Even the BSiest BS commonly has some fragment of truth somewhere in it.

Return of Kings: "Malala Yousafzai Is A Coward And A Hypocrite"

   It's still unclear whether Return of Kings is a troll site or not. But there does seem to be a non-zero probability that someone, somewhere is serious about this, which is batshit crazy even by internet standards.
   Crazy haters gonna crazy hate I guess.
   This stuff is so stupid it's not even worth commenting on.

[via /r/TumblrInAction]

James O'Keefe Caught Trying To Convince CO Dems To Commit Voter Fraud

   Well, this guy is a jackass, as you well know.
   I used to think that, jackass or not, he might be a good guy to have around. I certainly want to know if voter fraud is happening...and whether any Democratic activists are so easily persuaded to engage in it. I mean...there seems to be none of it...but we could be wrong. And why not let O'Keefe do the work and help keep the Dems on the straight and narrow? I mean...sure he's a nauseating nitwit...but it's not like we have to pay any attention to the guy.
   But that's a pretty silly view I suppose. He's a rabid partisan lunatic who wants to manufacture voter fraud--or the appearance thereof--where none exists. His goals are obviously purely partisan, and, while the odds of his turning up something real are small, the odds of his manufacturing or fabricating something to help an unhinged GOP seem fairly great. So I suppose it's foolish to see him as doing a useful job despite his bad intentions.
   And then there this...about which...I simply do not know what to say...

Monday, October 20, 2014

Scientology At The Airport

   Scientology's got to be sciencey, right? I mean...it's got both 'science' and 'ology' in it...
   Here's some of the top cultists ambushing a "suppressive person" at the airport.
   And here's some even cultier cultists freaking out at an anti-Scientology German government official, also at the airport.
   I was worried that they might use the Force or whatever to make these people's brains explode...but fortunately they didn't. They just mostly used their creepiness powers to...act totally freaking creepy.

(via Reddit)

[And another, even loonier, Scientology freak-out...though not at the airport this time :(  ]

BS Watch: "The Problem With 'Deaf Person Hears For The First Time' Videos

facepalm
   Wow.
   That's some high-octane BS right there.
   The "Deaf"-with-a-capital-'D' community is known for saying some pretty nutty stuff, and a fair bit of it is on display here. (This is, in fact, far from the craziest thing I've seen written on the subject.) Basically none of the major points in this are any good at all. The only point of any value anywhere in the vicinity would go something like this: videos of people gaining their hearing are likely to make deaf people who will never hear feel even worse. And that does, indeed, suck. It really sucks. It really, really sucks. But that's not a sufficiently good reason for people not to make such videos, nor for others not to enjoy these genuinely moving moments. And that point--the only real point in the vicinity--is never made in this piece.
   It's pretty hard to believe nonsense like this gets posted on the Atlantic site.

Drum On "Yes Means Yes" (And Some Subsequent Reflections)

link
   This is reasonable.
   Personally, I'm unsure about the law, too...
   But it's clear that it is not accurately described by the phrase "'Yes' Means 'Yes'." A more accurate descriptive phrase would be: "No 'Yes' Means 'No.'" I have no Earthly idea why anyone would associate the phrase "'Yes' Means 'Yes" with this law. (Though I have just discovered that 'yes' is one of those words that starts looking wrong if you write it over and over...) Perhaps this is some sneaky attempt to make the law sound "sex positive"--something the law, whatever its other virtues might be, definitely is not...  But I don't know.
   I'm very much interested in anything that will minimize rape and sexual assault, but I'm wary of this law. For one thing, I don't see why there should be special laws about sex at college. For another, I suspect that this legislation has largely been pushed by the neo-PC/SJWs--and that's a decidedly irrational and illiberal bunch. So I worry that there are irrational implications that the rest of us haven't yet noticed. I do think the general admonition to make sure everybody's consenting and having a good time is Very Good Advice Indeed...  But there's just something weird about the state reaching down into the bedroom and demanding that a new contract be approved at every "phase" (as if there really were such things) of sex. Not obviously crazy...but not something we should be unreservedly happy about, either.
   OTOH there's one thing that really does incline me toward the law. There was a massive Reddit thread a few years back in which the OP asked sexual assailants to explain themselves. This is one of the kinds of things that makes Reddit really interesting. There were, of course, a couple of real psychopaths responding...but, by far, the most common kind of response was from guys had been accused of sexual assault and were astonished by the accusation, or who had not been accused, but worried retrospectively that they had unwittingly committed some kind of quasi-assault. There were a striking number of respondents who said that the woman had given them no clear sign that she was not interested. I've also seen accounts by female college students in which they report being too embarrassed or afraid (though: in the absence of any reason to fear violence) or uncomfortable to speak up and say that they don't want sex. If these stories are true, then that is actually the best reason I know of for the law. Women who fail to speak up are violating their obligations to themselves and their partners. If they fail to make it clear that they do not want sex for some bad reason (such as those listed above), then they are the ones at fault. Now...this law shifts their responsibility over onto the guy...and that isn't right. It isn't fair, it infantilizes women, and it's the kind of lunacy we have come to expect from the neo-PC/SJWs...however, it seems to beat the alternative of one person enduring unwanted sex and the other person doing something that resembles (but is not) sexual assault. For ordinary cases of person A changing her mind mid-sex, the moral obligation is on her to make that clear. It is not B's obligation to continually prompt A to make her desires known. And the view that it is B's responsibility is associated with current extreme lefty fads that have it, basically, that women have no responsibility for anything in this vicinity, and men have all of it. (In fact, they are even responsible for things they haven't done...but I digress...) And yet...though unfair, it might be better for males overall in that it gives them an extra incentive to make sure that they aren't participating in sex that the other party doesn't want. I'm not sure it's worth the price--because it sounds as if the law will deem a male guilty of rape if the female changes her mind but fails to indicate that. And that is clearly not rape. So: we can expect at least some non-rapists to be classified as rapists by this law. And that is obviously bad.
   On the other other hand, the idea is probably to make a law that covers both ordinary cases and cases in which the woman is too intoxicated. In a case in which A is too intoxicated to meaningfully consent or withhold consent, then the relevant responsibility does fall to B...though obvious problems arise if, as is usually the case, B is also too intoxicated...  Some are concerned that only the male will be declared to be a rapist under such conditions...and that, too, is clearly wrong.
   Yet, this law might still be worth trying.

GamerGate, Pro- and Anti-

Saturday, October 18, 2014

"Borderism" is "Problematic"

   Forgot to express my annoyance at the following:
   The Washington Post saw fit to publish some SJW/neo-PC nonsense.
   I wish it were feasible to admit everyone who wants to come to the U.S.. In particular, I wish we could admit every last political refugee on the planet. And then there are the economic refugees...
   And, of course, there is something philosophically puzzling about refusing people admission to your country when that means that they will be denied rights that you acknowledge as universal human rights.
   However...for rather obvious practical reasons, we cannot admit everyone who wants to come to the U.S. We'd almost immediately become radically overpopulated, and probably end up on  a trajectory toward third-world status.
   It's not an option, and it's obviously not an option.
   Also, of course, such policies worsen world overpopulation because less-populous countries act as safety valves, bleeding off excess population from countries with higher populations. But that's a rather different kind of problem.
   At any rate, there's nothing wrong with thinking hard about the situation...but that "borderism" op-ed is mindless crap. The lefty-left seems to think that simply slapping "-ism" (or "-phobia") on the end of words constitutes some kind of argument. And liberals have a bad habit of falling for that nonsense. I doubt that they'll fall for this one, but given the recent rise of the neo-PCs, who knows? There does seem to be some tendency among many contemporary liberals to frown on the enforcement of immigration policies. And who can be happy about chasing down and kicking out people who are simply looking for a better life?
   (And, of course, the red herring of Loving v. VA has no place in this conversation at all. Another tactic of the lefty-left: pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Jebus, these people...)
  Anyway. There are real questions in this vicinity, but the mindless nonsense in this op-ed isn't anything like a serious answer to any of them.
   [Oh, and don't forget...everything is "problematic"! The paleo-PCs loved "offensive", but the neo-PCs are dedicated to "problematic"...thus having ruined another perfectly good word for me...]

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Imagine a GOP-Controlled Senate...

...then give to the DSCC

The Virus You Should Really Be Worrying About

Ruth Marcus is right: gitcher damn flu shot.