Campus Idiocy Roundup I

Harvard, circa 2018?

For busy readers, here’s the conclusion: Nuke ’em from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

Headline Those ‘Snowflakes’ Have Chilling Effects Even Beyond the Campus.

Like Antony Esolen, Heather Mac Donald gets it. She understands we are dealing with a violent enemy, using the power it has been given. These are not snowflakes. These are social justice warriors. True, as warriors, they’re anemic pantywaist filled-diaper bugwits—but they are still dangerous. One rat is not a threat, but a swarm of them can kill. What’s the over-under on the number of months until somebody is killed at a campus event?

Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an ideological one. At its center is a worldview that sees Western culture as endemically racist and sexist. The overriding goal of the educational establishment is to teach young people within the ever-growing list of official victim classifications to view themselves as existentially oppressed. One outcome of that teaching is the forceful silencing of contrarian speech.

At UC Berkeley, the Division of Equity and Inclusion has hung banners throughout campus reminding students of their place within the ruthlessly competitive hierarchy of victimhood…Another opined that physical attacks against supporters of Mr. Yiannopoulos and President Trump were “not acts of violence. They were acts of self-defense.”

Headline Students who avoid making eye contact could be guilty of racism, Oxford University says.

Long-time readers will know we predicted that in future (as the Brits say), to avoid being labeled “homophobic”, one would have to admit to having at least experimented with gay sex. This prediction is re-emphasized here.

The university’s Equality and Diversity Unit has advised students that “not speaking directly to people” could be deemed a “racial microaggression” which can lead to “mental ill-health”.

Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told…

“Essentially people are being accused of a thought crime,” Dr Williams told The Telegraph. “They are being accused of thinking incorrect thoughts based on an assumption of where they may or may not be looking.”

There’s nothing “essentially” about it. Not looking is now thoughtcrime. And so is looking. Looking objectifies, as universities also assert. The obvious conclusion is that our enemy wants us blind.

Last year Oxford law students were told they could skip lectures covering violent cases if they feared the content would be too “distressing”.

Earlier this year it emerged that Cardiff Metropolitan University banned phrases such as “right-hand man” and “gentleman’s agreement” under its code of practice on inclusive language.

Psst, realityophobe. Hey. Over here. Want to hear something really “distressing”? Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Headline Students demand administrators ‘Take action’ against conservative journalists

In an open letter to outgoing Pomona College President David Oxtoby, a group of students from the Claremont Colleges assail the president for affirming Pomona’s commitment to free speech and demand that all five colleges “take action” against the conservative journalists on the staff of the Claremont Independent.

The letter, written by three self-identified Black students at Pomona College…

“Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry,” they write…

The students also characterize truth as a “myth” and a white supremacist concept.

Would it do any good to ask these simpleton students if it is true that truth is a white supremacist concept? The answer is no. It would not. And that is the truth. Take it from me, a white man.

Incidentally, here is the opening of the student letter: “We, few of the Black students here at Pomona College and the Claremont Colleges, would like to address…” If you seek to criticize, don’t. Grammar is also racist.

In reference to the protests of Mac Donald, the open letter explains that engaging with Mac Donald’s speech would have amounted to a debate not “on mere difference of opinion, but [on] the right of Black people to exist.”

Yes, exactly. Black people have no right to exist. That is precisely what Mac Donald was trying to say. How did these geniuses figure out Heather’s secret message? Got some extra bright folks here, friends. Give ’em all PhDs in Raceology!

Can’t resist quoting this gem from the end of the letter: “To conclude our statement, we invite you to respond to this email by Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:07pm (since we have more energy to expend on the frivolity of this institution and not Black lives).”

Admit it. Go on, ‘fess up. You, like me, are wondering where these kiddies heard the word frivolity.

Homework: Examine the letter and see if you can guess whether these students knew what the word praxis meant.

7 Comments

  1. Blaming students for the idiocy and spinelessness of adminstrators seems pointless. If the administration didn’t cave to every demand, this would have gotten nowhere. Blame the idiot in the administrative office—the adult (in name only, apparently) who is tasked with keeping education as the goal of the institution, not insanity and safe spaces. Students have always been idealists. It’s those “in charge” who caused what you see now. One may still have to nuke ’em from space (though if moronic parents didn’t PAY to have their kids turned into whiney victims, again, this could not happen as often as it does now) but at least we’re clear on who caused the need for the action.

  2. Finally, after a lengthy drought, the wonderful lingo has returned: “… anemic pantywaist filled-diaper bugwits—but they are still dangerous.”

    RE: ‘looking at, vs, looking away’ — either can be a micro-aggression. This simply illustrates how/that no matter what one does, one can be accused…and the reason will have nothing to do with the plain meaning of the charges so much as other factors, such as likability, political orientation, etc., etc. The crafting of preemptive excuses to attack & censure anyone they want for any reason they want, but gussied up as if the reason is somehow valid, is what the bugwits are up to.

    The country has been at a similar place before — the Salem Witch Trials come to mind as an early well-documented example. After setting aside all matters religious & superstitions, the glaring pattern in old Salem is that those accused and their defenders where solidly in the group we today would call the “haves” and the accusers were solidly in the group we today would call the “have nots” [aka “bugwits”] — that as a result of then-recent demographic changes brought about by local trade, etc., resulted in unequally distributed economic prosperity. See the map & some discussion at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/CDH/ray.pdf

    Then, envy among the ‘have-nots’ was enough to prompt some to literally destroy [or try to destroy] the focus of their envy … and today we see essentially the very same thing — unequal distribution of prosperity is attacked to achieve more equal distribution of misery (or something like that). Though the modern bugwits haven’t quite yet gotten to outright stoning, burning, and so forth. Basically, with all our social evolution & educational progress, we as a species haven’t changed a bit.

  3. Wait!!!

    Mac Donald means son of Donald. So Heather is being referred to as a son of Donald?!? And no one but me is outraged?!? Isn’t that another example of paternalistic colonialism? Shouldn’t you all be ashamed?

  4. And how can these accusations be true unless there is Truth, so the protestors have fallen prey to the white racist Enlightenment values.

    Methinks, they all suffer from Sixties Envy. They all want to have been on that bridge in Selma where they could Stand Up to the Man and Speak Truth to Power. But that would have meant enduring not finely parsed glances and hidden meanings. It would have meant enduring taunts, slurs, bricks, bottles, and billy clubs — and a fair chance that your body might never be found. That was what we might call “macroaggressions.”

    Of course now Power is pretty much on their side and the Man is their enabler. The battles have been won, even if the clean-up is not complete. And these folks are in the absurdist camp of pretending that post-structuralist deconstructionism and various word-play means they are suited up in the same game as their grandfathers when they are taking that extra step that isn’t there.

  5. A bit off topic, but it is of campus (academic, and I use the term lightly) origin. Not one to get left behind in the rush to social justice lunacy, the taxpayer-funded ABC (Australia) decided to put up this piece of ideological cancer:

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

    Yes, reading to your kids gives them an unfair advantage in life. Please stop doing this folks. Oh and private schooling… that’s right out!

  6. I will admit to a healthy dose of daily red-pilling on Youtube. There are plenty of excellent Youtubers, even those who identify themselves as liberals (in the US sense of the word), who are sick to the back teeth with the SJW nonsense. Several are suggesting that the younger generation is embracing conservatism as the new counter-culture.

    As Paul Joseph Watson says, you can’t be the dominant culture on campus, in Hollywood, and the MSM and also expect to identify as the counter culture. They may identify as one of 73 (or whatever the latest count may be) genders, but they can’t identify as the counter-culture.

    Speaking of gender, you might get a giggle from one of the recent Pepe memes, may he rest in peace*:

    http://pics.me.me/doesnt-the-b-in-lgbt-imply-there-are-only-2-20086171.png

    * The author of the Pepe character recently killed him off as he was becoming a symbol of the deplorables.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *