Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 15th, 2014 #221
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[Flip-Strength Test: Michigan]

Vandalized: Residence of U-M Student Who Dared to Mock Trigger Warnings
Robby Soave|Dec. 15, 2014

Omar Mahmood is a student at the University of Michigan. He considers himself a political conservative and a Muslim. And until recently, he enjoyed writing for both of the campus's newspapers: the institutional, liberal paper, The Michigan Daily, and the conservative alternative paper, The Michigan Review.

After penning a satirical op-ed for The Review that mocked political correctness and trigger warnings, The Daily ordered him to apologize to an anonymous staffer who was offended and felt "threatened" by him. He refused and was fired.

Last week, he became the victim of what The College Fix has described as a "hate crime." The doorway of his apartment was vandalized in the middle of the night; the perpetrators pelted the door with eggs and scribbled notes like "shut the fuck up" and "everyone hates you you violent prick." They left copies of the offending column and a print-out picture of Satan. (Hmm, when I was a similar position, my jew friend stuck a picture of Hitler and another Nazi on my door. I was a conservative individualist, not a racist or anti-jew. I didn't really mind, but it goes to the point that jews know where you are headed if you think certain thoughts; to them all whites are potential nazis and conservatives are halfway there.)

The column that caused such a controversy, "Do the Left Thing," was published in The Review last month. It's a first-person narrative in which Mahmood pretends to be a left-handed person who is offended by the institutional patriarchy of right-handedness. A sampling:



Satire is of course a perfectly acceptable—and particularly important— vehicle for registering dissent with ideological orthodoxies, especially one as pervasive as the culture of political correctness at the modern university campus. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this piece hits home, but not about whether it's a valid contribution to the campus debate.

A staffer at The Daily who saw the piece was furious, however, and complained to editors. One of Mahmood's bosses at The Daily told him that article—which ran in The Review, remember—created a hostile work environment and made the staffer feel "threatened." Mahmood was asked to apologize, which he refused to do.

Daily editors dug up the paper's bylaws and found a provision that forbids students to work for both papers without prior permission from the editor-in-chief. He was told to resign from The Review immediately. After he failed to do so, he was sent a termination letter.

I can't recall whether that rule was ever enforced during my tenure as editorial page editor at The Daily in 2009. But it does exist, and appears to give The Daily just cause to fire Mahmood. But it's difficult to believe that his work at both papers is the root cause of his termination, rather than the views he expressed.

As Susan Kruth of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warned, The Daily's actions could end up stifling student-journalism by making writers afraid to express contrarian views:

Of course, independent student newspapers like theDaily are not bound by the First Amendment, but students who value unfettered debate and free expression do not punish peers for saying or writing things with which they disagree. Instead of forcing Mahmood to choose between writing satire and reporting for the Daily, any editor who was offended by his column should have offered his or her own counterpoint to Mahmood.

Instead, the Daily’s actions will serve to make students reluctant to write further satire, confining their writing either to the non-controversial or, perhaps, to less entertaining forms.

That was the end of the story—until last week, when The College Fix reported that Mahmood's off-campus apartment was vandalized. The four criminals wore hoods and baggy clothing to disguise themselves; less brilliantly, they changed in full view of the apartment complex's security camera. They appear to be women of unclear ages. The video footage is available here. (link not working at moment)

I spoke with Mahmood, who tells me the police are looking at the matter. And I understand that some people have identified the women in the video footage. I will publish an update when their identities are confirmed.

The whole string of events is a sorry indictment of the rampant illberalism of the modern, "liberal" college campus, where writing something that offends someone else is considered threatening, but censorship, vandalism, and actual threats are not.

Robby Soave is a staff editor at Reason.com.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/so...dalize-apartme

[i'm sure this guys is a neocon, but campuses are so far left that no disagreement on anything can be tolerated at all]
Orwell said that wimmin are always the most zealous backers/enforcers of Authority, and we see it clearly here. Like niggers, they love to pile on SAFE targets. 'Cause doin' Right ain't got no end.

When the stupid, vandalizing whores are fingered, they should be expelled. Of course that won't happen.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old December 16th, 2014 #222
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Orwell said that wimmin are always the most zealous backers/enforcers of Authority, and we see it clearly here. Like niggers, they love to pile on SAFE targets. 'Cause doin' Right ain't got no end.

When the stupid, vandalizing whores are fingered, they should be expelled. Of course that won't happen.
Women are capable of an almost measureless, unmitigated hatefulness.
 
Old December 16th, 2014 #223
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

 
Old December 29th, 2014 #224
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[jew cuban nails it]

Billionaire Mark Cuban Warns Of Massive Crash That Will Wipe Out America’s Colleges: “You’re Going To See A Repeat Of What We Saw In The Housing Market”

Posted by Mac Slavo

The billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks says America’s colleges are in serious trouble and that over a trillion dollars in student loans will put many of them out of business.

Quote:
For years the federal government has been subsidizing loans, much like they did with houses ahead of the 2008 crash. This has led to increased tuition costs and lending to individuals who will more than likely never be able to pay back their student loans. The end result, according to Mark Cuban, will be a bursting of the debt bubble, a significant drop in college tuitions, and an outright collapse of America’s institution of higher learning:
College tuitions have exploded because of easy money guaranteed by Sallie Mae. So, if any student can borrow more and more money, and it’s guaranteed by the federal government, why wouldn’t the colleges take it all?

The problem is that bubble has led to over a trillion dollars in student loan debt, which is having a significant impact on the economy and it’s really holding us back in the economy’s ability to grow. It’s holding back housing, it’s holding back apartment building, it’s holding back car sales, it’s holding back clothing sales… anything that’s not an absolute necessity, kids can’t spend their money on.

That’s a real problem for the economy and I think that bubble is going to burst. I think it’s inevitable at some point there’ll be a cap on student loan guarantees and when that happens you’re going to see a repeat of what we saw in the housing market when easy credit for buying or flipping a house disappeared.We saw a collapse in the price of housing and we’re going to see the same collapse in the price of student tuition and that’s going to lead to colleges going out of business.

Though going to college was a stepping stone for bigger and better things several decades ago, the notion that having a degree is the only road to success today is one of the largest scams in U.S. history:

College education is big business, and with easy Federal loans, prices for everything from tuition to text books is going through the roof. Once degreed, the majority of college grads are ill-equipped to handle the current marketplace. Many of those who entered college just five years ago simply can’t find work in a 21st century economy that’s imploding on all sides. What college grads are left with are massive loans that can’t be repaid and a room in mom and dad’s basement.

At one time, college was an investment. Today, it’s become indentured servitude.

For parents and teens looking at colleges, we suggest taking a close look at the amount of money that will need to be spent and borrowed, compared to the benefits that will come out of the degree pursued. Thirty years ago, a bachelor of business would have been a desired degree to hold. In an economy with over 20% unemployed, one must ask: how many business administration and management jobs will there be four or five years from now, especially if we continue to lose production capacity to cheap foreign labor.

A micro-documentary produced earlier this year by Crush The Street exposes the scam for what it is:

The government gladly invests taxpayer dollars into student grants and loans. This is what has been driving the increase in college tuition bringing it above and beyond the average student and family.

For teenagers the propaganda is so potent that high school students in many cases have blind optimism that they will land their dream career after college and have the income to easily pay off any loan balances occurred along the way.

Some graduates are left with over 100,000 in debt and can barely find any job, let alone the one they pictured themselves getting into four years ago.

We’re not suggesting that a college education isn’t worthwhile. But at current tuition costs those who lack practical skills for today’s economy once they get out of school will be left indebted, impoverished and living in mom’s basement for the majority of their working lives. That’s hard to believe for many future students of higher education but the fact is that nearly 85% of college graduates will return home jobless:

Saddled with debts that will take years to pay off, college graduates are finding it almost impossible to acquire any sort of meaningful labor in this much touted jobless recovery.

[…]

Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives.

Millions upon millions of dreams will be crush

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/12...ousing-market/

[what benefits you is not piling up debt to take in marxist garbage but working and making money - and SAVING NOT SPENDING THAT MONEY. that's how you get ahead financially. even -- nay, especially -- if you work at macdonalds or walmart]
 
Old January 5th, 2015 #225
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

When explaining why he dropped out of film school, Paul Thomas Anderson said “My film making education consisted of finding out what filmmakers I liked were watching, then seeing those films. I learned the technical stuff from books and mags…Film school is a complete con, because the information is out there if you want it.”



When people ask me if I went to film school, I tell them, ‘No, I went to films'”- Quentin Tarantino
 
Old March 18th, 2015 #226
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

on harvard admissions

http://gawker.com/ivy-league-admissi...02410/+emmacar
 
Old March 20th, 2015 #227
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jacobite2 David Harmon • 4 days ago
When I was in grad school (in the early 70s) there was a book called "The Social Sciences as Sorcery" that was all the rage among us hard-science guys. But, it was already over. I watched real professors canned, or, if they had tenure, they were kicked out of their offices and re-located into hallways. Blanket bans on research subjects (most of all, nothing, nothing, nothing related to race would be approved or funded) were imposed. Today's US colleges are more like Stalin's Russia than Medieval Paris or Oxford -- each one with its' own little Frankfurt School Lysenko setting the ideological agenda for the day, and turning out the zombie-Leftists of tomorrow. A third-world USA will be a significant improvement.
 
Old March 21st, 2015 #228
JeffreyWaffenSS
Senior Member
 
JeffreyWaffenSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Women are capable of an almost measureless, unmitigated hatefulness.
I have to agree there. Especially the younger they are. They might "look" caring and all but they can be two faced and turn ugly quick. I'm not talking just backstabbing other women but they do it to men too.

Women can be very hateful towards guys as well especially when a guy shows interest in them they're quick to call you a perv, stalker, creeper, etc. Once a girl calls you a creeper it spreads to all their friends.

I had that happen to me in college a few years ago to a girl I thought was a friend I met. I tried showing an interest in her and she turned on me and of course all her girl friends on campus hear the scoop and they all end up deleting me on facebook.
 
Old March 21st, 2015 #229
Samuel Toothgold
Charachature incarnate
 
Samuel Toothgold's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Already in accordance with the future Repulsive Tapir Avatar Mandate
Posts: 4,068
Default

They're not all like that. It simply sounds like a case of confused communication on both your parts and fear on hers. There are plenty of creeps out there, and if a guy hasn't a strong extroverted personality. But, is rather shy, reserved or generally quiet, these types are often confused with those who have genuine skeletons in their closets. Phrases like "Fuck her. Then forget her" or "She's a slut, because she puts out" or "She's a stuck-up bitch, because she doesn't" doesn't help close the rift between both genders.
Concrete examples of where women carry grudges and can be vicious are those where they get rejected from a potential or ongoing relationship from a male who suddenly hooks up with another woman.
__________________
youtube.com/watch?v=-EDJRcwQvN4 youtube.com/watch?v=S0lxK5Ot5HA
youtube.com/watch?v=HFv92Lc8FXg
 
Old March 23rd, 2015 #230
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[good example of the environment you get at a liberal-arts college in 2015. you pay them for this! reed has always been extremely leftist, but this is still par for the course. where wimmen hold sway, facts give way to feelings. how she says she feels about her comfort level in your presence becomes The Measure of All Things, no matter the objective facts of the situation. women WILL use foul means to obtain advantage, and far less than men are they even aware of what they are doing, much less recognize the unfairness of it. and again, what is happening here is called education but it is not education, it is groupthink and indoctrination - politics masquerading as learning]

Student Barred From Class For Disputing Rape Statistics

03/19/2015

A student at Reed College has been banned from class for denying the existence of “rape culture” in the United States and arguing that the oft-repeated statistic that one in five women are raped at college is bogus.

Jeremiah True, 19, received an email from professor Pancho Savery on March 14 telling him he was making his classmates so uncomfortable that he was no longer welcome to participate in the “conference” sections of his Humanities 110 class, a course which focuses on the art and literature of classical Greece, according to BuzzFeed News.

True says he sparred with his classmates on a variety of issues, but says it was his criticism of the 1-in-5 rape statistic that ended up being the tipping point.

“There are several survivors of sexual assault in our conference, and you have made them extremely uncomfortable with what they see as not only your undermining incidents of rape, but of also placing too much emphasis on men being unfairly charged with rape,” said Savery in an email True posted online. “[Other students] have said that things you have said in our conference have made them so upset that they have difficulty concentrating in other classes. I, as conference leader, have to do what is best for the well-being of the entire class, and I am therefore banning you from conference for the remainder of the semester.”

At least one student thinks giving True the boot was the right move, saying that True’s statements somehow represented a safety hazard.

“This is an excellent example of a professor taking initiative to take care of his students,” senior Rosie Dempsey told BuzzFeed. “Of course, we are an institution that encourages dissent and active discussion, but there is a difference between stimulating discussion through opposition and making other students feel unsafe.” [he's making her unsafe by disagreeing with her; typical leftist dishonesty turned into a censorship tactic. you're not just wrong, you're immoral and evil and hateful. and you're physically threatening the leftist too.]

Another student said that True’s ouster was necessary because he was “triggering” other students, suggesting that True was so bothersome he was activating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in others. [we cant have our little dearies exposed to anything that makes them the slightest bit uncomfortable or brings to mind any of the terrible traumas they've all endured, for they are strong women and deserve better. and they wonder why college is mostly to the women these days? what man wants to be part of this. even if he can't identify precisely what's wrong, he can sense it.]

“Rape culture is indisputable and [True's] words and actions are deeply upsetting. They’ve retraumatized and triggered survivors, and that seems antithetical to Reed culture,” said junior Kate Hilts. [by disagreeing with woman-favored statistics, a man has in effect raped her again. assuming she was actually raped the first time, which is not a safe assumption. 'triggered' is a faddish new piece of cant, now popping up like daffodils. what this amounts to is privileging women's emotions, filtered through leftist ideology, above all facts, evidence or logic. this is the opposite of learning as there is nothing objective involved, just feelings- and ideology-based claims the left seeks to make it anti-social to illegal to disagree with]

Officially, though, True’s actions seem perfectly in line with Reed culture. The “About Reed” page on the college’s website repeatedly extols the importance of independent thought and free inquiry. The first operating principle of the college reads ”The educational mission of the college requires the freest exchange and most open discussion of ideas. The use of censorship or intimidation is intolerable in such a community.” The school’s mission statement declares that “The goal of the Reed education is that students learn and demonstrate rigor and independence in their habits of thought, inquiry, and expression.”
[words on paper dont mean shit. in fact, if you actually possess the spirit of those words, or any words, you really dont need the words. the words are a holdover from the sixties, where they were no doubt applied to whichever kind of zoo sex the left was then promoting against traditional morals. now that the left runs things, they are in position to act by their real nature, and we see the results. leftists are The Establishment who thinks of itself, still, as the rebel. they talk about freedom and independence, they exhibit conformism and censorship]

Whether or not True is “triggering” his fellow students, his argument against the 1-in-5 rape statistic is on solid ground factually. While activists and even the White House have repeated the claim that 20 percent of women are raped at college, that number is primarily based on a study that had numerous shortcomings: It only surveyed students at two (unnamed) universities, it relied on Internet surveys with a low response rate and it used questions worded in such a way that ordinary drunken sexual encounters could be classified as rape.

Department of Justice research, on the other hand, suggests that about 0.6 percent of collegiate females are raped in a given year.

True, whose Facebook page says he studies “How to Annoy People,” has no plans to back down. Instead, he has launched an online petition demanding that he be allowed back into the course.

“I know many people aren’t comfortable with taking the stances I do, but I’m not a sheep,” True told Buzzfeed.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/19/st...1248%2C1625965

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 23rd, 2015 at 08:20 AM.
 
Old March 24th, 2015 #231
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

CONFESSIONS OF AN OVEREDUCATED A/C MAN

by Albert Morgan | on March 18, 2015

There is a specter haunting Middle America—the specter of higher education.

For a young person in America, college is the thing to aspire to. It’s the go-to option for virtually every American looking to maintain or enhance his station in life. Higher education embodies the values, hopes and dreams of millions of young people and their families. The stories write themselves. Here a first generation freshman, out to do his family proud. There a young woman out to better herself and shatter a glass ceiling or two. Everywhere the expectation that “This Is How You Get The Good Life.” Why, without the credentials offered by as prestigious as institution as one’s ability, tenacity, savings and, yes, connections can muster, you’re liable to be stuck with the dregs—working dead end jobs with no hope of advancement, living wages, or health insurance!

What tripe.

Next time you’re in a coffee shop, ask your barista if they’re going to school and for what. Or better still ask if they’ve graduated. Ask your bartender. Ask your server. Ask the guy stocking groceries at the Whole Foods. If they’re not still in high school, odds are they’re enrolled, in school or recent grads. Odds are good they’ll find themselves doing something similar after graduation.

College has changed since the Baby Boomers were their kids’ age. Their idea of college, however, seems to have been last updated during the Reagan administration. What Boomers think of as a safe space for ideas, for debate, for the exchange of knowledge is for Millennials a place of rigid ideological conformity, speech laws and “conversations” on controversial topics that resemble nothing as much as a struggle session for those hapless souls following the old script of debate and rationality.

While the Boomers could expect to go to college and be among the 30% or so of their generation that did, two thirds of Millennials attend such institutions. This has degraded the elite atmosphere of college, one that insisted on high standards and only admitted those able to meet them. In an effort to expand their income and to meet the egalitarian expectations of their potential customers, academia has been steadily debasing its own intellectual currency to admit lower quality students.

Not that administrators or the various victim-studies professors much mind or care. While the average student is now in need of remedial classes, that same student is paying far more out of pocket for the privilege of relearning what he didn’t master in high school. And then he will go on to required courses in Women’s or African American or Chicano Studies. When Boomers went to school, these parasitic pseudo-disciplines were still embryonic rather than metastasized.

Between the lower quality of the student and the lower quality of the instruction, employers have taken notice. College degrees don’t mean what they used to. Even the stronger STEM disciplines are under attack from a combination of private sector rentseekers looking to “diversify” tech by pressuring companies into hiring net negative ( but “diverse”) workers. Possibly more insidious is the efforts of feckless captains of industry to import ever more HB1 tech workers from Asia to dilute the labor pool and lower average wages.

Of course none of that was the case for Boomers. By the relative rarity of their degrees and the acknowledgment that it took real work and talent to earn them, a Bachelors of the Arts was a viable meal ticket. Compare this to our current situation, where 40%+ of college grads take jobs that don’t require a college degree. Most of them will be liberal arts degrees and possibly even more pitiable degrees in laughable disciplines such as the aforementioned victim studies.

Who is to blame for this mess? Why did it get this way? Boomer cultural norms simultaneously incentivised college and dumbed it down. Other forms of honest, well paid work such as trades or skilled labor were frowned upon, putting them out of sight, out of mind for many young people, especially young men. Many such jobs were offshored along with the American manufacturing, thus eliminating them as an option to begin with in some cases.

Millennials are not innocent either. Despite being, as a generation, coddled, insulated from criticism or failure, they are now becoming the masters of their destiny, and many are proving every bit as selfish and clueless as their piggish forebears. Demands for ever more state intervention to subsidize college are very common. Blame for the situation, although rightly put upon a number of factors outside of their control, rarely includes any agency on their part. An expectation of upper middle class wealth, status and jobs right after graduation with little to no effort, seems ubiquitous.

I myself was not immune, either to my own personal failings or those set up for me. My story is sadly typical: My parents were Boomers who never went to college. As I came of age in 2005-2007, My options were presented to me:

“Your standardized test scores are high. Go to college. Trades are for idiots and the military is for patriotic idiots. You’re elite material.”

“And major in what?”

“Whatever you want. College will get you a job.”

Being a young man I expressed interest in military service but was met with stiff resistance from parents, administrators and guidance counselors. I cannot recall anyone admiring the value of patriotism, of duty, or even of using the service cynically as a roundabout way to pay for college with the GI Bill. For a young man eager to do well by his community and respectful of authority figures in his life, uniform advice pointing in one direction was compelling.

Thus, I went to college. Being of modest means I could only afford state school. Having been told to follow my passion, I majored first in history. My own faults begin creeping in here. I studied hard but also partied hard. I had a vague notion that history was useful only for teaching high school. Then I thought about switching to Political Science since I was interested in politics and theory (and since practicing law seemed like a vague, attractive, physically easy job that had a fantastic income potential). I changed my major and called it a day.

I studied in good faith, but as I read more and more material of the alternative right both in the US and Europe, I began to drift from the received ideology of my professors and peers. The rift was a positive feedback cycle driving me further and further away from what I was learning in school. By day I could listen with a straight face to pie-in-the-sky absurdity from the likes of Rawls and by night, assuming I wasn’t being a hedonist with the best of my generation, I was reading Moldbug, Roissy and Alternative Right and growing more and more skeptical of what professors were teaching.

Interactions in the classroom highlighted the divide. In legal classes I defended natural law. In political theory classes I dissented openly. Professors grilled me hard and I noticed it in their grading. Nitpicks became demerits and disagreements became wrong answers. It came as no surprise to me that requests for letters of recommendation after graduation went coolly unanswered.

As I approached my senior year my various contradictions reached a culmination. I became aware I hadn’t done any due dilligence as far as if I wanted to go to law school. And, as my legal studies classes were making obvious to me, I had no particular interest in the minutia of jurisprudence. I finally did some research on the salaries, working conditions and opportunities for lawyers in the real world and found it dismal. I wasn’t a rich kid. Did I really want to sink 100K into 3 more years of this mess I was coming to dislike already? For maybe 45-50K if not unemployment? Decidedly not. College advisers had nothing of value to say concerning my situation. In the waning days of my senior year the vague, Boomer drivel that “Diplomas guarantee a good job” was found to be a cruel joke. At best only a degree specifically targeted to the demands of the market, rather than pinned to hopes of sliding into middle management somewhere in corporate America, would have made my college investment of any utility.

A shame I found that out second semester, senior year.

I graduated with a lump in my throat and a stinging sensation of shame and failure. I had been misled utterly, yes, but I also made bad decisions on my own. Although I was correcting them to some degree (discovering the degree was useless, writing it off, cleaning up my college-subsidized hedonistic degeneracy), I had a lot of work to do. As the Alt-Right had made me aware of a great number of pretty lies, it had also inculcated a value set in me that came to detest shrugging my situation away into apathy and slackerdom. I wanted a wife. Children. I still wanted a good life in a solid community. I would need to work.

After a a few fitful attempts to leverage my degree that ended in failure, I began to look into the trades. Young men I had scoffed at as rubes or laboring proles as a teen, I now saw were my age with solid incomes and lives that were budding into the sort I wanted for myself. I made up my mind to go to trade school and then I saw how strong some of my conditioning was. It took me weeks and months of low level, but gradually diminishing agonizing to simply get over the fact that I was going to be “blue collar” instead of “white.” A petty, largely meaningless distinction but one so bound up with what I was told was of such supreme importance to my status, happiness and well being that I was surprised to see how strongly it resonated in me. Boomer values at work. Pwned as Moldbug himself would say.

In time I got over it. In time I found I understood machines and detail related to my selected trade, HVAC, relatively easily. Study habits gained from being a bookish kid and 16 years in school paid off for absorbing the material. I physically hardened as I acclimated to demanding work. My hothouse sensitivities, tastes and values were cast off one by one.

HVAC has since given me a far more remunerative job than I ever had before college or as a result of my degree. It’s a demanding, masculine profession being almost completely male, lining up with my growing sense of wanting to do work that would reinforce manly values in direct contrast to the mushy, unisex world of the university and the academy. It was plainly useful work that makes some of the technological aspects of the modern world, that part of modernity I have not come to detest, possible in many ways. It challenged me and continues to challenge me still.

As a young man, it’s helped me to find a better place in my life and in my community. The fact that a trade helped to do this so readily, naturally and at a far quicker pace is part of what makes college as it’s presently instituted such a damning blight on my generation.

How many men have been deprived of the chance to do honest, useful, empowering work to instead play status games, take drugs, and wind up indebted and underemployed by following the advice given in increasingly bad faith by society’s elite? How many young women fritter away some of their best years on preparation for sterile office jobs while degrading their ability to ever pair bond with a husband by engaging in equally sterile rutting with men who value her little beyond sexual access? How many families are being delayed or never formed from this arrangement? How many billions of dollars and man hours are being squandered on an egalitarian pipe dream?

The answer is “Too many.”

Change is in the air, however. College enrollment has flatlined. Editorials, replete with stories like mine and statistics to back them up are slowly filtering into middle America. The dour, prissy, hysterical atmosphere of political correctness that wafts over virtually every college campus in America is repellent to young men, who are turning away in greater numbers every year.

Where a society channels the energy of its young men is drastically important, and, as the farce of higher education in early 21st Century America begins to be known, fewer of those young men will put their energies into it. There is ample opportunity for them to put it elsewhere. Into learning skills that will render them better men mentally and physically, into their own pursuits according to their own values, into discovering what else they were misled about by their leaders. And from there, perhaps, into kinship with the Right.

http://theden.tv/2015/03/18/confessi...ucated-ac-man/
 
Old May 19th, 2015 #232
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

FLIP STRENGTH: OBERLIN

typical leftist cant not worth paying for: violence requires multiple definitions

http://oberlinreview.org/8174/opinio...e-definitions/
 
Old May 19th, 2015 #233
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

FLIP STRENGTH: GEORGETOWN

[trigger warnings are for bubble girls. any idea they dont like, any experience they dont want to know about - they require advance warning so they can guard themselves. society under the jew becomes ever more bizarre, as the feelings of some, say white women raped by jew-loosed niggers, dont matter at all, receive zero coverage, while the tender feelings of larval leftists are covered like the wind blowing through dandelions]

GREAT DEBATES MAY 17, 2015 [great debate? are you kidding]

My Students Need Trigger Warnings—and Professors Do, Too

By Aaron R. Hanlon @AaronRHanlon

“Rape” comes to English from the Latin rapere, “to seize.” When I teach Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock”—an early eighteenth-century poem about the true story of Arabella Fermor, whose suitor Lord Petre clipped off a salient lock of her hair as a keepsake—this is the second thing I explain: “Rape” in this context means not necessarily to sexually violate, but to seize:

Oh hadst thou, cruel! been content to seize
Hairs less in sight, or any hairs but these!
The first thing I explain is that Pope’s poem contains language, as in its title, that could trigger a stress response for a survivor of sexual assault; and further, the poem involves bodily violence against a woman. I give this warning even though I know Pope was writing in the mock-epic tradition, deliberately and ironically dramatizing a prank of little consequence as though it were an earth-shifting event.

I give, in other words, a “trigger warning” of the sort that Jerry A. Coyne rightly admonishes in a recent article in The New Republic, in which he argues that “life is triggering” and therefore literature classes should not shelter students from images or ideas that are uncomfortable or traumatic, but challenge them. I give a trigger warning with full knowledge that the gender-based violence in “The Rape of the Lock” is—in my particular experience—mild in comparison with all the dark places that not just “Western,” but broader global literatures, can go. Trigger warnings are nevertheless important because no matter how knowledgeable and comfortable professors are with the intellectually and emotionally challenging material we teach, our students are real people with real histories and concerns. They do indeed want to be challenged—to be made uncomfortable by literature—but it’s our job as professors to do more than just expose them to difficult ideas. It’s our job to help see them through the exposure.

I don’t mean to say that we should become licensed therapists or trauma experts on top of our ordinary specializations, or worse, to pretend to have expertise we haven’t earned. But so long as we’re happy to evangelize about the truly disruptive and real life-changing possibilities of our subject matter, we also need to be prepared to teach that difficult and sometimes disorienting material responsibly and attentively, not just to cast out barbs of hardcore human expression while we watch our students puzzle and weep.

Coyne would never advocate such a pedagogy, I know. Still, unless we have a more robust discussion of what it really looks like to grapple with emotionally difficult or triggering material, arguing that trigger warnings are bunk and leaving it at that stops short of addressing the real issue of praxis: suppose trigger warnings are flawed, infantilizing, and impossible to deploy reliably, yet student concerns remain. What then? Ignore them, to the detriment of their education? That would only sustain demands for trigger warnings and the naïve calls for professors (many of us experts in matters of race, class, and gender sensitivity) to undergo sensitivity training.

It could also be to the detriment of many professors' job security, such as it is. For this debate isn't only about whether students need protection from difficult material. It's about a lack of institutional support for professors and how that impacts students' education.



The beginning of the controversy raised in the Columbia student newspaper—a call by four students for faculty to provide trigger warnings and to be more sensitive about potentially traumatizing or triggering course material—was that a student survivor of sexual assault was triggered by a class discussion about Ovid’s “Metamorphoses,” and that upon approaching her professor after class her concerns were “dismissed” and “ignored.” Further, the professor’s lecture on myths that include “vivid descriptions of rape and sexual assault” focused on “the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery.”

These—the details of teaching—are the most important details of this story because they describe those moments in which the instructor in question might have taken a few extra steps beyond the “beauty of language and the splendor of the imagery” to engage students in a discussion of the historical context and the trauma of Ovid’s writing. These are the moments after class or during office hours when a professor can listen receptively to a student who was traumatized by the material and the class discussion, who might not have been comfortable sharing her thoughts in front of the class, and who might, yes, need a referral to campus health professionals. These are the moments when professors can tip our hands and explain to students the value of teaching and learning and discussing material that nevertheless unmoors us.

These are also the moments that Coyne moves swiftly by in an otherwise powerful argument for the pitfalls of trigger warnings. He writes:

That professor was clearly wrong to dismiss the student, and perhaps he or she might have mentioned beforehand that there is violence and sexual assault in Ovid, but that’s as far as I’d go.
But that’s about two minutes of class time. An interesting byproduct of trigger warnings is that they prime a class for discussion. Students don’t just nod at “sexual assault in Ovid” and write it down; they begin to engage with an aspect of the material, they give signals about how they’ll be affected, they evaluate the warning in relation to the language and subject matter of the text (which they better have already read in preparation for the class!). A trigger warning doesn’t have to be an act of censorship or a straightjacketing of interpretation; it can be a starting point for a ranging discussion that ultimately challenges students’ points of view.

Given that the difficult and potentially triggering material we teach must not be abandoned because it’s timeless, provocative, germane, or simply canonical by accident of history—and given that a trigger warning can actually open up a discussion of material with which students have an initially low comfort level—we simply can’t dismiss student calls for trigger warnings. We have to take them seriously, not because literature (or life) needs a censor or students need to be coddled, but because being more acutely aware of how students are responding to challenging material is just better and more responsible pedagogy. It’s true that life is triggering and won’t usually come with its own trigger warnings. But students are in their seats in part to be better prepared for that reality, and it’s professors’ jobs to facilitate that kind of intellectual development.

The unfortunate irony in all of this is that the legitimate concerns of professors like Coyne about the potentially infantilizing effects of trigger warnings on students have been expressed seemingly without connection to concerns about infantilized professors. Given that over 75 percent of professors at U.S. colleges and universities are contingent faculty—like adjunct professors—who are operating without the prospect or protection of tenure, one of the better arguments against trigger warning policies is that they provide a more straightforward path to dismissal for the contingent professor who innocently fails to pick up on a particular trigger.

Reluctance to trust an expert’s understanding of a text (and the implications of all its dark corners) is also infantilizing professors in a way that can impede student learning. Failure to pay contingent faculty enough money to work one job instead of shuttling between piecemeal work at two or three universities; failure to provide them with office space in which to have those difficult conversations with students one-on-one; and failure to support their pedagogical choices in the classroom all reduce the ability of professors to see students through difficult material. Arguing flatly against trigger warnings won’t make these realities go away, but arguing for better institutional support for faculty can improve the conditions under which trigger warnings become necessary by giving faculty the resources to be more supportive of students.

For these reasons I’m inclined to see the trigger warnings controversy as a more complicated question of university policy and academic labor, as opposed to simply the protection of students’ tender sensibilities. Providing trigger warnings can be sound pedagogy that reflects attentiveness to how students are responding to class material; but trigger warnings can’t be policy. They can’t be policy not just because, as Coyne argues convincingly, there can be no reliable and systematic way to detect all triggers without throwing virtually everything out the window; they can’t be policy because a significant percentage of U.S. professors lack the institutional support required to make and follow through on such controversial pedagogical choices without putting their jobs on the line.

This is one of countless ways in which institutional support for faculty is inextricably tied to faculty support for students. And this is one of countless reasons why we need to listen carefully to students. The student call for trigger warnings at Columbia may be flawed in its recommendations, but it’s fundamentally a call for more thorough teaching. We can’t merely admonish the students; we must support all faculty toward the end of teaching intellectually and emotionally challenging material more attentively.

Aaron R. Hanlon is a visiting assistant professor of English at Georgetown University, soon to join the English faculty at Colby College as assistant professor of English.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ampaign=buffer
 
Old August 5th, 2015 #234
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

Tests? We don't need no steenkin' tests!

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1888834
__________________
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action
 
Old November 2nd, 2015 #235
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

The New Cultural Marxism and the Infantilization of College Students
By Thomas DiLorenzo
October 19, 2015

When socialism finally collapsed all around the world in the late ‘80s/early ‘90s the academic Marxists did not just throw in the towel and face reality. Indeed, not one of them has ever apologized for providing intellectual support for some of the worst mass murderers in world history – Stalin, Mao, Castro, and the rest of the communist/socialist gangsters. Instead, they reinvented themselves in several different ways, including posing as “environmentalists,” and as “cultural Marxists.”

Taking their cue from socialist economist Robert Heilbroner in a September 10, 1990 New Yorker article entitled “After Communism,” many Marxists began promoting socialist central planning of the economy and of society as a whole (a.k.a. totalitarianism) in the name of “saving the planet” from capitalism. The old Marxism was sold in the name of “the people”; the new Marxism said “to hell with people, we’re for the ants, the lizards, snakes, rocks, trees, etc. – Mother Earth. People Schmeople. Hence the “watermelons” were born: green on the outside, red on the inside.

The cultural Marxists take a different approach. They replaced the Marxist theory of class confict between the capitalist “class” and the working class with a new set of classes. Now the supposed eternal conflict is between an “oppressor” class and an “oppressed” class. In essence, the oppressor class consists of white heterosexual males. The oppressed class is everyone else. Armed with this new totalitarian ideology, egalitarianism is still the secular religion of the academic Marxists, with “diversity” being the mating call of the modern academic administrator.

Now that the cultural Marxists are in charge of so many colleges and universities, they no longer even pretend to defend academic freedom and free speech. Silencing dissenting opinions (to Marxist totalitarian ideology) is now taught to students as the only moral position. One of their gurus is the Marxist intellectual Herbert Marcuse, who has been called “the evangelist of cultural Marxism.” He is of course a “celebrated intellectual” who has taught at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia Universities. Marcuse first became famous among academics in the 1950s with his book, Eros and Civilization, in which he advised young people to “don’t work, have sex.” (It apparently never occurred to him that the two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive). This was in keeping with the hoary Marxian theme that all work is slavery.

Marcuse also taught that science and the scientific method is “the enemy” for it “denies the reality of utopia,” by which he meant communism. In today’s world, we see this same idea expressed by the watermelon socialists when they use the quintessentially unscientific language of “settled science” in reference to the global warming hoax. Science is never “settled.” If it were, it would still be “settled science” that the world is flat. Settled science watermelons like Al Gore are the new flat earthers.

Marcuse also opposed freedom of speech, which he said was a tool of “the oppressors” since it was responsible for too many criticisms of communism. “There is no need for logic, debate and free exchange of ideas,” he said, for communism supposedly “provides all the answers.” Certainly libertarian or conservative views should not be permitted on campuses since they support “the status quo.”

Only the “oppressed classes,” as defined by the cultural Marxists, deserve tolerance, preached Marcuse; all others deserve intolerance, and students must be indoctrinated in this thinking, he said. All of these things are now, and have been for a long time, common features of academe.

In addition to Marcuse, the work of law professor Catharine MacKinnon, the high priestess of cultural Marxism, also inform today’s university administrators and their cultural Marxist faculty. Dissenting views (to their verision of totalitarian Marxism) threaten to create a “hostile work environment,” she says. And if the work environment becomes so hostile that it interferes with work effort, the source of the “hostility” should be fired. Thus, if a libertarian or conservative academic should somehow sneak by the university interviewing committee and become employed, and then reveal himself to be a dissenter, he can always be fired – even if he has tenure – under the guise of having created a “hostile work environment” with his dissenting views about free speech, the Constitution, free-market exchange, or Heaven forbid, gun ownership.

According to Catharine MacKinnon, the new mantra that should be taught to children is: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are infinitely worse.”
Cultural Marxist academic administrators lie through their teeth when they make speeches or write articles in the university alumni magazine praising academic freedom. They are lying because they supervise a strict censorship of dissenting views at the same time. One method that is used to achieve this is to declare that “insensitivity” and “hurt feelings” are caused by dissenting campus speakers. For example, when Dr. Walter Block was maliciously libeled by the president of Loyola University Maryland, one Brian Linnane, several years ago, the mechanism of libel was textbook cultural Marxism: the Marxists on campus sent one student to Dr. Block’s invited economics lecture with instructions to complain to them later that something he said was “insensitive.” Brian Linnane then sent an email to all students, staff, faculty, and alumni apologizing for the “insensitive” remark while never mentioning what the remark was. In fact, what Dr. Block said was a very mainstream idea in economics –that wage discrimination based on gender or race penalizes discriminating employers in a free-market economy. It does so by providing a profit opportunity for the discriminating employer’s competitors. For example, if in my accounting firm I discriminate against a woman who generates say, $100,000/year in revenue for me by paying her $50,000/year while paying equally-productive male employees $90,000/year, a competitor can hire her away for say, $60,000 and make $40,000 in profit. Eventually, I will be left with all higher-paid male empoyees which will reduce my profitability. The same story goes for employer discrimination based on race.

The cultural Marxist mantra, on the other hand, is that capitalist America is such a hopelessly racist and sexist society, that only the “legacy of slavery” and the white male “war on women” are permissible on college campuses as the one and only causes of male/female or black/white wage differences. Anyone who shows up on a college campus who says otherwise is not to be debated with logic and facts, as Marcuse said, but libeled, smeared, and called a racist and a sexist.

Most American colleges and universities take their cues from the Ivy League schools, such as Brown University. According to a March 21, 2015 article in the New York Times, the cultural Marxists at Brown set up a “safe room” whenever a renegade student organization invites a non-Marxist speaker to campus. These rooms are filled with cookies, coloring books, Play-Do, calming music, pillows, blankets, videos of frolicking puppies, and “trauma experts” according to the Times. This is the business that most American colleges and universities are in these days: the infantilization of college students. Faculty are instructed to place “trigger warnings” on their course syllabi warning students that a disseting (to cultural Marxism) opinion may be found there. Safe rooms are set aside just in case. Students are routinely taught to boycott or disrupt any campus speakers who dissent from cultural Marxist orthodoxy, and to participate in vicious, malicious campaigns of character assassination orchestrated by faculty and administrators.

Cultural Marxism may be bred in academe, but it has spread throughout society. When Rush Limbaugh attempted to become part owner of an NFL team the cultural Marxists lied, as they routinely do, by spreading the false rumor that he “defended slavery” on his radio program! When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. sponsored a public debate on immigration policy, something Americans have been doing since the Louisiana Purchase, inviting both sides to air their views, the hardcore left-wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), accused AEI of “mainstreaming hate.” The SPLC routinely conflates mainstream organizations like AEI with say, the KKK, by using the same language of “hate” and “hate group” to describe all of them.

When Rand Paul first ran for the U.S. Senate the SPLC issued a “report” on “dangerous characters” running for state and local political office. Next to a photo of a genuinely crazy-looking neo-Nazi from the mountains of Idaho was, naturally, a photo of Rand Paul. When a group of military, police, and firefighters pledged their devotion to the U.S. Constitution by creating the group, Oathkeepers, the SPLC also branded them as a “hate group.” And when Ron Paul was running for president the SPLC talked the Department of Homeland Security into issuing a public warning that people with “Ron Paul for President” bumper stickers were potential “terrorist threats.”

The heavy-handed, totalitarian censorship that now exists on most American college campuses is so ingrained that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld no longer perform on college campuses. Too many students have been turned into dour, humorless, left-wing cultural Marxist scolds in the image of their professors and university administrators. One thoroughly-brainwashed twenty-year-old even wrote a letter to Seinfeld, whose comedy television show was the most successful in all of television history, on the “proper” way to perform a comedy routine.

In his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek presciently described the effects of this kind of censorship under totalitarianism in a chapter (11) entitled “The End of Truth.” Such propaganda in a totalitarian society is “destructive of all morals,” wrote Hayek, because “it undermines one of the foundations of all morals; the sense of and the respect for the truth” (emphasis added). Moreover, “in the disciplines dealing directly with human affairs and therefore most immediately affecting political views, such as history, law, or economics, the disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed in a totalitarian system . . . . These disciplines have . . . in all totalitarian countries become the most fertile factories for the official myths which the rulers use to guide the minds and wills of their subjects.” This of course is what cultural Marxism and political correctness are all about: spreading Official Myths to promote a totalitarian, socialist society.

“The word truth itself ceases to have its old meaning” in such a society, wrote Hayek, for “It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority. . .” and “intolerance is openly extolled.” Herbert Marcuse could not have said it better.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/...lege-students/
 
Old April 12th, 2017 #236
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

walter williams
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/...campus-cancer/

chronicle of higher ed article on PC
http://www.chronicle.com/article/The...WVpZZTlSa1lpTQ

white privilege checklist in Minn
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9047
 
Old April 13th, 2017 #237
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/12/pu...#ixzz4eBkksWee

Public University’s ‘Diversity Training’: Expecting People To Show Up On Time Is Racist

ERIC OWENS
Education Editor
04/12/2017

Clemson University has allocated nearly $27,000 on diversity training materials for professors.

The taxpayer-funded school in South Carolina purchased the online training materials from an outside vendor, reports Campus Reform.

The training materials are a series of slides depicting scenarios with fictional characters.

One slide features a guy named Alejandro who plans a meeting between two groups. Each group contains foreign professors and students. One group shows up 15 minutes early. The second group shows up 10 minutes late.

A question-and-answer section then instructs Clemson’s professors that Alejandro would be insufficiently “inclusive” if he were to “politely ask the second group to apologize.” Alejandro would also be wrong to advise the straggling, late people who aren’t respecting everyone else’s time that “in our country, 9:00 a.m. means 9:00 a.m.”

The “inclusive” thing for Alejandro to do, the taxpayer-funded diversity materials instruct Clemson professors, is to “recognize cultural differences that may impact the meeting and adjust accordingly.” Alejandro must understand “that his cultural perspective regarding time is neither more nor less valid than any other.”

A second online slide is a strange meta-response to people who think diversity training courses are dumb and poitnless. The slide features a woman named Maxine and a guy named Henry. Maxine says that training about “political correctness” is a stupid waste of time that prevents people from getting actual work done.

The “answer” portion of this section declares that Henry should “discuss how diversity can lead to better decisions” and “decrease employee turnover.”

The training slides instruct Clemson professors that it is very wrong to “say nothing” to Maxine.

A third slide warns Clemson’s faculty that “freedom of speech and academic freedom are not limitless.” Then there is odd Orwellian threat: “Language that is derogatory with regard to race, sex, or other protected or emerging forms of diversity does not belong in a university that values inclusion.”

The Texas-based vendor which provided the diversity training materials is Workplace Answers. The company received payments totaling $26,945 from Clemson.

Clemson’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, appears to have approved the $26,945 order.

Gill brings home a taxpayer-funded salary of $185,850 each year, according to The Tiger Town Observer, a conservative-leaning student newspaper at Clemson.

Last April, Clemson University president James Clements vowed that “all employees will participate in diversity education and training,” according to Campus Reform.

The $26,945 training provided by Workplace Answers does not appear to be mandatory. It is strongly suggested, however. Professors who complete the training check a box at the end indicating that they “acknowledge and certify that I have read, understood, and will comply with Clemson’s Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy.”

An anonymous Clemson professor provided the slides to Campus Reform.

Clemson University is most famous, of course, because school officials swiftly apologized in for serving Mexican food during a food-themed “Maximum Mexican” night in campus cafeterias in 2015. Two students had complained about the ongoing cafeteria fiesta. One of them tweeted an image of cafeteria workers wearing sombreros. The caption of the tweet — which later appears to have disappeared — was: “Our culture isn’t a costume and we will not be mocked!” (RELATED: Taxpayer-Funded University Apologizes For Offending Mexicans By SERVING TACOS)
 
Old April 26th, 2017 #238
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/0...duates-by.html

Average IQ of college graduates by decade of graduation
 
Old May 17th, 2017 #240
carl_sebastian
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 36
Default

Collage isn't even good for sex

Having a short STEM degree is more than enough, if you have to pay for your education even that might be a good idea.
 
Reply

Tags
edu-business

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.
Page generated in 0.29297 seconds.