Given the (this isn’t the right word) success of the last Roundup, this may become a semi-regular feature.
Longtime readers know these “Catholic” students are far behind us. Why, it was three full years ago we opened betting on the next “orientation” letter. Even then, we were at LBGTQAI, more or less.
The student government at the College of the Holy Cross is pushing an expanded acronym in place of LGBT or LGBTQ: “LGBTQIAP+.”
The acronym stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual,” and all the other non-heteronormative, non-cisgendered among us (that’s left-wing-speak for heterosexual people).
Defining yourself by your sexual desire is an axiom with these folks. You are your lust. It defines your existence. Since lust is endlessly various, it follows there must be a limitless supply of letters with which to express these lusts. People will not be satisfied with having their individual lust lumped into a “+”. Too degrading and existence denying.
English has far too few letters, I’m afraid. We could append Greek and Cyrillic, but we’d still fall shy. The only solution is numbering. Problem here is, even though there are an infinite supply of numbers, campus knotheads would immediately fall to arguing over precedence. Who gets “1”, sodomy or dog lovers? What an ugly fight it would be!
I’m out of ideas. What are yours?
Before we begin, I want to remind readers that I have not received any invitations to speak at graduations this year. Again. The mind boggles.
As graduation season approaches, colleges across the country are locking down commencement speakers to address the class of 2017. Harvard got Mark Zuckerberg (a Harvard dropout). Hillary Clinton is speaking at Wellesley, Bernie Sanders at Brooklyn College. Joe Biden will speak to my seniors at Colby.
This was the opening, to prove that there are worse things than being uninvited.
When departments or groups arrange for a speaker, invitations are usually authorized by small committees or localized administrative offices without a campus-wide discussion or debate.
Do you see? Do you see? Campus-wide discussion. To this writer, a professor, the campus a monolithic entity, a modern-day monastery. Of course the campus should speak with one voice against the heresy of Reality!
Understanding this sequence of events is crucial, because no-platforming is as much a function of process as of politics. Instead of community-wide discussion and debate over the merits of bringing a given speaker to campus, the debate happens after the invitation, giving the misleading impression that no-platforming is about shutting down speech. Indeed, when savvier campus groups deliberately choose controversial speakers, they’ve already won half the battle by getting the speaker approved. After that, every value judgment against the speaker, however thoughtful, reasonable, or prudent, becomes an attempt to silence the speaker and “shield students from scary ideas.”
If you didn’t have it before, you have it now. The writer premises his argument on the belief that there is only one set of acceptable views, and that, sometimes, heretics and rogues sneak one past the goalie. These heretics and rogues, the author later implies, should be stopped. Bad invitations should never happen.
And this, you might be surprised to learn, I agree with. Heresy should be barred. Thus, the author is right that there is only one truth, and that it should be defended at all costs. He’s only wrong in thinking he’s identified it. The author, like the majority on campuses today, are all staunch realityophobes. If they thought the politics warranted it, they would deny the sun rises in the east. Campus disinvitations (their word) are not wrong because “free speech” is sacrosanct. They are wrong because they are removing the chance for students to hear the capital-T Truth.
Headline Violence, repression, and freedom
Jim (the author) is a fellow gloomier than I, and perhaps too (um) Freudian in some of his analyses (I don’t believe he’s Christian). But here he is right. Campus realityophobia and allied violence are driving people to the alt-right.
Today, if you support freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, you are a nazi. So, what the hell, you had better ally and organize with actual unironic nazis. George Soros is a Jew, and he is providing your enemies with military grade pepper spray and restricted explosives, so if the Nazis say “the Jews” are doing this, why split hairs with them?
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly was always a lie, sometimes, as in our past, a little white lie. Sometimes, as at present, a great big blatant arrogant lie. There is always a state religion, and you can never commit lese mageste against the state religion and its symbols…
The trouble is that our official unofficial state religion has open entry into our officially unofficial inquisition, the social justice warriors, with the result that it is intrusively developing a line on everything — not only race and sex but fatty foods and global warming, so that the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association have become alarmingly intrusive and aggressive.
Punchline: “Repression is ramping up not because we used to have freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble before and now we do not, but because the official belief system is getting ever crazier, and thus requires ever more violence to be enforced.”