Bring Back MST3K!: The Kickstarter Campaign
(via Inside Carolina)
Imagine a hand palming a human face forever
Just like you’re mistaken if you don’t think white is a race, you’re mistaken if you think you can remain neutral.See how that bit of irrelevant theory gets thrown in there? The point is obviously to reinforce the theory that "race is a social construct" (a claim so confused that, as Pauli might say, it isn't even wrong). But white is a race, of course. The arguments to the contrary, though pressed with revolutionary zeal by the cult of culture, are invalid. White is a race. Races are (rather unimportant) natural kinds, and all the PC mumbo-jumbo in the world won't change that.
Students and alumni of the University of Kansas are coming to the defense of three student government executives who are facing impeachment on charges that they were not sufficiently enthusiastic in their support of a student-led diversity ultimatum.
Student Body President Jessie Pringle, Student Body Vice President Zach George, and Chief of Staff Adam Moon are all facing demands that they resign by Wednesday or face impeachment proceedings after the Student Executive Committee voted 6-3 Friday in favor of a no-confidence vote against them, according to Huffpost
The pressure on Pringle, George, and Moon came just two days after Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little moderated a forum at which a student organization called Rock Chalk Invisible Hawk presented a list of diversity demands that included hiring a team of “multicultural counselors” for students of color and instituting “mandatory, intense ‘inclusion and belonging’ training” for students and faculty.
During the no-confidence proceedings, the Committee specifically claimed that Pringle and George did not "stand in solidarity with their black peers and proclaim that Black Lives Matter" during Wednesday’s forum.
Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’ ”
I struggle with that definition [of political correctness] because when we're talking about gender and race, these are not things that are debatable.Nnnnnnnnope.
academia — especially the social sciences — undermines itself by a tilt to the left.I'd say: especially the humanities and the social sciences. And the explicitly politicized, largely activist departments like women's studies, gender studies, and the various varieties of ethnic studies departments that have one foot in the humanities and one in the social sciences.
We should cherish all kinds of diversity,Yeah, no. Not even close. Not even close to being close to being right. We should not cherish all kinds of diversity," This is one of the muddle-headed beachheads established by the paleo-PCs of the late '80's-early '90's. "Diversity" is part hollow verbal tic, part verbal camoflage that, among other things, encourages us to reduce individuals to whatever biological and cultural properties the left wants to emphasize at the moment, and part rotten euphemism that lets us do so without feeling bad about it. We don't have any reason to "cherish," say, 8-bit video-game aficionados, horse enthusiasts, Scientologists, poop-swastika-scrawlers...nor any number of other irrelevant types. Diversity is not clearly a good in itself, and certainly not good along any axis you can think up. Are there too few black people in American universities? Well say so then. If you can't even say it, then you shouldn't be pursuing policies that attempt to change it.
A widely circulated video showed a furious student shouting down one administrator, Prof. Nicholas Christakis. “Be quiet!” she screams at him. “It is not about creating an intellectual space!”In addition to being illiberal, political correctness is anti-intellectual. They've got an array of jargon that might sound scholarly to the untrained ear, but that's just a facade. There is a kind of link between PC and the post-post-modern mish-mash of not-terribly-good recent Continental philosophy that's so popular in so much of the humanities and social sciences--critical theory et al. But there's a deep anti-intellectual current in that stuff that subordinates the pursuit of truth to "emancipation"--at least in it's more popular interpretations. Liberals-in-the-broad sense hold that we have to put up with discomfort and offense because free expression and the pursuit of truth and goodness are more important. PCs think that--to put the point in its most unfavorable light--hurt feelings trump all. Or, rather: the hurt feelings of members of politically correct groups trump all. There's a point worth considering deeply buried in their nonsense...but I'm not feeling particularly charitable this morning.
A student wrote an op-ed about “the very real hurt” that minority students feel, adding: “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.”
Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics
This post focuses on problem No. 2: making the tax code more regressive. In this regard, Sen. Marco Rubio takes the cake. If you were thinking: “what tax change could I implement that would be most helpful to the wealthiest households?” you’d quickly come to the same conclusion as Rubio: zero out taxes on capital gains and dividends. That’s because taxation on these forms of income, currently taxed at a top rate of 23.8 percent, is highly concentrated: according to the Tax Policy Center, 79 percent of the tax take from this asset-based income comes from the top 1 percent, 5 percent from the bottom 90 percent.
Radicals Against Institutional Damage (R.A.I.D.). The group sent a letter signed by nine to key administration on campus expressing their views.Right. Showing a movie about homosexuals fighting for their rights might do "institutional damage" to the college because word that you don't agree with are "discursively violent," ergo represent a threat to the safety of people who disagree with them. There's also more later on about this being a treat to the relevant students' "identity and safety."
“This film is discursively violent,” write the activists. “In a world where cisgender, white gay people have finally achieved “marriage equality” and many see the struggle as being over, it is reinforcing a hierarchy of oppression to invent someone who never existed and place them in a historically-based film with the express purpose of silencing more marginalized groups.”
The Film and Media Studies Department argued that their decision to screen the film does not condone its content. Rather it is an attempt to engage with the executive producer and possibly, an opportunity to question some of the decisions made in the film’s representation of minorities.
“For me as a scholar and queer person engaging with my environment it is essential to analyze and critique these representations in order to draw attention to what is at stake for queer folks and to engage with the stories that are being told and held as representative in mass media,” said Spanish and Portuguese Professor Naomi Wood.
Others argue that this critical discussion justification is a front.
“Critical discussion is simply a way of engaging in respectability politics,” said first-year Amelia Eskani. “I think Colorado College should cancel the screening because the safety and well-being of queer and trans* students surpasses the importance of a critical discussion.”
“As we move forward from Monday’s conversation, there are many things I think we need to address,” said Dr. Heather Horton, Director of the Wellness Resource Center. “First among those is the immediate need to engage with communities and individuals to build our capacity to care for one another and ourselves. This kind of self-care and community-care is particularly important when we are engaged in activism.”Seriously.
“I, as an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender”Hahahaha... Translation: I, as a blatant racist and sexist, simply choose to use preposterous re-definitions of the relevant words to thinly veil the undeniable substance of my racism and sexism.
The devolution of one of the nation's two major political parties, and its sanction of nonsensical beliefs on taxes, science and other issues, is the most important political development of our era. Bush's candidacy originated as a conscious backlash to that. Before his campaign even began he said a Republican would have to risk losing the primary to win the general. Bush was saying that his party had become so extreme that the policy positions required to please its base were toxic to a general electorate. He would have to risk the base's ire to have a shot.