Students at Wellesley are starting to feel their non-GMO fair-trade organic Damascus-steel-cut oats.
No, wait. That can’t be right. Oats are white. Oats are racist. Let me start again.
Students at Wellesley are starting to feel their muscles, and have developed the taste of blood. Regarding those with whom they disagree over political matters, they say “hostility may be warranted“.
The quotation came from the college rag The Wellesley News under the banner “Staff Editorial”, which means those who wrote the piece “Free speech is not violated at Wellesley” didn’t have the courage to sign their names.
The emphasis in the quotation is mine, but it should be yours, too, because why? Because here we have an announcement that students will use hostility to silence and punish those who do not swear fealty to Diversity, Intersectionality, Sodomy, and whatever else the filled-diaper crowd feel (not think) important.
So that, when you stand in a philosophy class at Wellesley and say, “Those two men say they are married to one another, but of course it is metaphysically impossible for two men to be married”, and you next feel the truncheon being laid upside your skull, or the heel of the boot crushing your neck, your last thoughts should not be, “Oh my”, but “I guess they were serious when they said hostility is warranted.”
Serious they are. Intelligent, well-reasoned, courageous and moral they are not. These students are evil.
These students are not just wrong, but immoral. And they are evil and immoral not because they are calling for violence against their enemies per se, because sometimes violence against enemies is, as these students say, warranted. If you saw a black-hooded black-masked black-hearted antifa “protester” charging your way intent on causing harm, you are warranted in using violence to stop him.
The students are evil and immoral in part because we all of us are. We are all sinners. But these students seek to call sin good, and calling sin good is an evil goal. Not only that, but they would use violence to force others to call sin good, or at least use violence to suppress those from calling sin what it is.
The students say, “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”
This is gibberish. What in the world, after all, could “undermine the existence…of others” possibly mean? Saying to a man who is pretending to be a woman that he is, in fact, a man does not “undermine the existence” of this poor fellow. It is an attempt to bring the man back to Reality. Reality is existence.
You can hate Reality for making you a man when you’d rather be a woman, but Reality itself has no hate to it. Saying what is real and true is can never be “hate” speech.
“Hate speech” is an asinine term at any rate. The only people who ever use it with serious intent are full of seething vituperation directed against those who hold to Reality and Tradition. Real hate speech is that which condemns or curses Reality.
“Surely these students won’t get away with actual violence. Our Constitution says we have free speech over political matters!”
Look, friend. The Constitution is only a crusty piece of parchment, subject to interpretation by men. The very kind of effeminate men graduating from places like Wellesley. The Constitution means what the government says it means. And since the government mainly hires graduates from places like Wellesley, the Constitution will soon be said to say that speech is free, but only if that speech meets the test of ideological purity according to these “men without chests”.
I elsewhere wrote “The Violent Rule America’s Campuses: Violent behavior is condoned — as long as the politics are correct“. Violent acts by Reality-denying students is so common that only its absence is remarkable.
It’s not solely students, of course. What did we see in Berkeley? On the latest occasion, Realityophobic students and others attacked those who were exercising their “free speech”. And what did the police do?
Not much. There were a few arrests, but much of the violence was allowed. Police sat and watched it. All indications are that the politicians in charge of the police directed this “looking away”.
The vast majority of time, Realityophobic students (and their keepers and allies) get away with the violence. But now the other side, long used to accepting the Realityophobic violence, is learning to fight back.
And they’re fighting back rather well.
It’s my bet that since the Realityophobes are at long last meeting resistance, the police will begin to act on campuses everywhere. It was well to have them look away when the Relityophobes were winning. But it gets serious when they begin losing.
(Note: I selected from the top videos suggested by YouTube. Undoubtedly there are many better ones.)
Who is Briggs’ hero, the one who is “fighting back rather well”?
He is Nathan Damigo. A few years ago he was convicted of armed robbery, having put a gun to the head of a cab driver relieved him of $43.
In the video, and, more clearly, one with more context at the link below, we see him running up to a woman who is not assaulting nor threatening anyone, and punching her hard in the face.
Why might Dr. Briggs have such affection for this kind of person? Does he approve of robbing cab drivers and punching women on the street in the face? It can’t be the technique he admires (“rather well”?); the smaller, lighter woman remains on her feet and fully conscious. Perhaps he overlooks the man’s shortcomings (boys will be boys) because he admires his politics so much. Again, check the link below to find out about these politics.
http://sfist.com/2017/04/16/viral_video_allegedly_shows_known_w.php
Lee: Punching women in the face? Why not? They would punch, kick, stab or shoot your derriere. I guess if you’re stupid enough to still believe you don’t hit the girl, you have it coming.
As to the guy being a “hero”, that was not said. He was said to be fighting back. Have you considered this is an example of two moronic individuals getting exactly what they have coming to them? After all, Antifa girls apparently feel free to harrass and bully whomever they don’t like worldwide (while wearing hankerchiefs over their faces and what resembles Muslim hijabs). Neo-Nazis, same thing, minus the hijabs mostly. They have precisely the same goals. Seems they are both living out their ideals just the way they want the world to be. A very good example of what wanting evil ends up getting you. I’m not sure why you are objecting—both of these people are livin’ their dreams in a world they created and advocated for.
I assume you would be soooo proud of your daughter wearing a t-shirt with profanity all over it, tats everywhere, a bandana over her face, screaming insults. Today’s proud parent.
The biggest problem here is the MORONS in society sending money to a Go-Fund-Me page for the stupid Antifa girl. Idiots will be idiots, I know.
LOL! That guy “fighting back?” If I was there, I’d have knocked his face clean off his head. He doesn’t even know how to throw a punch. And hitting a woman! What a lowlife! That’s the funny thing about all this campus “violence.” NONE of these protesters or counter-protesters would’ve lasted five minutes in my old scene.
Many years ago, I had a “friend” (actually, we couldn’t stand each other, but I was dating her best friend and she needed help and I was the only one she could come to for that sort of help), and she had to have an abortion. Her family was very strict Catholic, well to do, and the girls were utterly dependent on their folks. The guy that got her pregnant was just horrible. I’d heard stories about this guy, but then one day, while have a BBQ at a little rental bungalow I had for a couple years out in the country, this guy slaps her, hard, right in the face, right in front of my girl friend and her family! So, I put him in the hospital. I’m sure, all these many years later, he still has the big scar on his head. So, anyway, definitely not “dad” material.
In my crowd, I was known as the guy you went to when you had very personal problems that needed resolution without judgement or harassment. So, she asked me to be there for her and I obliged. This was in the days when anti-abortion protesters would gather right in front of the clinics and harass people coming and going. So, we get to the clinic, and I’ve been through this sort of thing before, and I can tell this crowd is a little extra rambunctious, so I park right in front, and get out of the car first, and very firmly yell at the crowd, “Everyone get out of the way, I’m bringing this girl in here, and if any of you hassle her, I’m going to hurt you.” So, they quiet a bit, I get her out of the car, and they immediately close in and start shouting and sticking their signs in our path. Now, I’m getting really angry. She’s sobbing, has her head covered, and I’m guiding her through, and then I hear “Ow!,” and I turn and I see a sign poke her right in face. So, I grab the sign, and pull it toward me with all my might, see the guy holding it, and punched him in the face so hard he fell back and then flat down, right into the crowd, and a bunch of them tumbled like dominoes. No one bothered us when we left.
The kinds of people who protest other people’s personal business, the kind of man who would assault a woman, these are what I call scum, and if they get in my way, I treat them as the scum they are. That guy in that video? He’s lucky it’s a much kinder, gentler world than the one I came up in. If I was there, he’d be in the hospital right now, if he survived.
I know most male “conservatives” really only identify themselves that way because they associate it with manliness. They are deeply insecure. The women? They are usually just nosy and overly religious, often have terrible life stories, or such sheltered backgrounds they lack the knowledge to have any other way of seeing things. But for me, a man is someone who stands up for the least of us, for the little guy, for the distraught and frightened, not fussing over embryos, or sticking up for big business interests, or least of all, hitting women!
JMJ
I am also a hero and wonderful man whom everybody loves and did I mention my IQ is very high also? Higher than yours if you’re reading this.
Loves AND respects, I should have said.
All shall be allowed in the conflicts to come. Punching women will become necessary as we move forward.
acricketchirps, I have to say, you have the perfect moniker! You write things, and like a cricket chirping, it’s just noise of no intrinsic value whatsoever (well, for non-crickets, anyway). Ad hom away! Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
And no, many people did not like me, let alone think of me as some hero. I had more than one person attempt to kill or maim me. I was a wild guy when I was young. I’m not proud of it all, but I did learn a lot from the experience. It’s not for everyone, but for some, a little wild life out on the streets of the Great American Underbelly can be very enlightening. Needless to say, I put that all behind me many years ago. Heck, with the shape I’m in these days (getting chemo, needing surgery, etc), I wouldn’t last five seconds out there! But I still would have punched that guy in the face. You should never hit a woman.
JMJ
That article from the university is cringingly, nauseatingly patronising. The writer of that article and their colleagues sound like the worst kind of moralising fusty dusty churchy type who pretends to generosity of spirit.
Enter stage Right the cringeworthy fake religious who wish they cared about sin and their friends who actually are obsessed with it.
I do think the nasties of the religious fanatics which includes Catholic and Protestants and those of the left who call themselves Liberal deserve each other. There’s only one way to break them up and that’s with a truncheon, let the policeman do it…Taser them.
Neither side are wholly sincere, it’s a tribal sickness.
“I’m not prejudiced, I hate everyone, down on everybody.”
JMJ —
So you are not proud of that which you regale? And you expect readers to believe? Hmmm.
acricketchirps,
It reads much better with a bad James Cagney accent and the insertion of the emphatic “see” at the appropriate points. e.g.:
Calm down White Knights. She was clearly identifying as a man during the protests 🙂 If you want to be treated like a man, don’t be surprised if you get punched in the face. That is what happens in riots; people get hurt. Men beat one another up.
All those who are upset about it should read her Tweets before she went Nazi-hunting. She was a beautiful young woman before she decided to become an AntiFa thug. The real cancer is the poisonous ideology being fed to these young people.
Xir got what xir deserved. Xir should go back to She and everything will be fine.
Wasn’t Wellesley once one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country? Now it’s just one of the top liberal colleges in the country (which is quite a feat, considering the competition).
They said, “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.” So, shutting down the rhetoric is hate speech, and they’re fine with that? I’m guessing the student newspaper doesn’t have an editor who understands semi-colons, among many other deficiencies.
“The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, …” Well, can’t let those nasty conservatives get a word in edgewise. If they ran things, peoples’ rights would be suppressed. So, we have to pre-emptively suppress their free-speech rights, so we don’t have a country where peoples rights are suppressed.
“We have all said problematic claims …” We have all said claims? Claims are made, aren’t they, not said?
“… the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society.” Oh, you don’t need to grow up in a discriminatory and biased society to generate problematic claims, your idiot liberal parents and public education can supply you with an endless supply of problematic thoughts and claims.
“The emotional labor required to educate people is immense and is additional weight that is put on those who are already forced to defend their human rights.” Those would be the conservatives, right, since they’re the ones whose right you’re advocating violating?
“There is no denying that problematic opinions need to be addressed in order to stop Wellesley from becoming a place where hate speech and casual discrimination is okay.” ARE okay!! Can’t you get subject and verb to agree even when there aren’t personal pronouns involved?
“Our student body is not only smart,…” Well, not the part of it that writes editorials for the student newspaper.
“… it is also kind…” But hostile. Do you have access to a dictionary of the English language? Do you know that kindness and hostility are pretty much antonyms? Look up “antonym”. After you look up “kind” and “hostility”.
JMJ, I wasn’t talking about you; I was talking about me. I should mention when I say everybody loves me of course I mean everybody that counts.
All,
Recall, women want the ‘right’ to serve in combat units in the military. Which antifa member would disagree with that?
Well, they couldn’t be any worse than your hero, who received an “other than honorable” discharge from the military, beginning his career of punching women and robbing cab drivers.
Lee,
Did you say “punching women”?
Why you’re a nothing but a misogynistic sexist. Report yourself to the nearest Womyns Studies Department.
Will do.
It occurs to me that, lately, you’ve made sure your readers are well informed about the kinds of people you don’t like: atheists, homosexuals, anyone who’s read a book about climate science; it’s good to find out the kind of people you admire (violent, white supremacist criminals with a hobby of aggravated battery).
Lee,
Did you say violent white suppressionist criminals with a hobby of aggravated battery? As in the kind of students who have been rushing stages and engaging in other violent behavior since the the ’60s.
No. I don’t like them at all. Though it is nice to have a hobby.
Good also to see you’ve come around to the correct opinion about women in combat. Dread the women in dreads!
So, your moral philosophy boils down to: two wrongs make a right? Something like that?
Three rights make a left but three Lefts are never Right and always wrong.
i*pi wrongs make a right, where (i-1)/2 is in Z.
On this “hostility might be warranted” theme, consider:
Catechism of the Catholic Church;
Part Three, Life in Christ;
Section Two, The Ten Commandments;
Chapter Two, “You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”;
Article 6, The Sixth Commandment:
(see: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)
Subpart:
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of UNJUST DISCRIMINATION in their regard SHOULD BE AVOIDED. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
QUESTION: The Catholic Church’s official Catechism states that, relative to gays, “UNJUST DISCRIMINATION…SHOULD BE AVOIDED”; what constitutes “JUST DISCRIMINATION”?
We know, in this blog arena, that semantics distinctions matter — and in its official Catechism the Church made a very very distinct parsing about “unjust discrimination” such that its counterpart, “just discrimination” is an option preserved.
That sure reads like an example of approval for being both judgmental and persecutory … contrary to the founder’s admonition, ‘judge not….’
“Just discrimination” is, of course, discrimination that is just. Discrimination is the act of telling apart (and consequently treating as different) things that are observed to be different. To the extent that they are, in fact, different, such discrimination is in accordance with reality, therefore just.
To observe a difference in one respect, say, sexual orientation, and respond a difference in treatment in some unrelated respect by, say, restricting the political rights of one or the other group, would be unjust, since the observed difference does not affect the common humanity that is the foundation of political rights. To treat them differently in some other respects, like what dating clubs they are admitted to, would be just, since that difference in treatment flows naturally from the difference observed.
If you think that an a condemnation of injustice, while implicitly urging justice, constitutes a call for persecution, you might want to read that paragraph again.