Saturday, April 25, 2015

Neo- PC Follies: 'Gin-Soaked' in "If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love"

facepalm
   So as I just discovered, there is this short-short story--more like a kind of poem, really--"If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love." I kind of liked it. It turns out to be preachy in the trendy SJW way that is currently all the rage in sci-fi...and, y'know...everywhere else it seems...  But still, preachy PC thought-policing to the side, the story's got a perfectly fine message and I like the writing. It won't go down as one of my all-time favorites, but, even fed up as I am with all this stuff, I can control for that, and I like the thing.
   But oh for the love of God...the post above is almost as beautiful an illustration of the nuttiness of the neo- PCs as you could ask for...  It turns out that the perpetrators of the violence in the thing are described as 'gin-soaked,' which apparently SJWs have decreed a "class marker". Thus, despite the intensely SJW-friendliness of the thing, IT IS TEH EVVILZ!!!111  Fer the lova... Those people are going to eventually evaporate in the very center of their hugbox/echo-chamber in a puff of self-parody...
   I'm not going to waste time on this foolishness, tempting though it is...but...two quick points:
   First, WTF kind of "class-marker" is gin (or 'gin')? I mean...if you held a gun to my head and forced me to say, I'd guess...uh...upper? I mean, none of the people I grew up with were exactly sitting around swilling Tanqueray martinis... But, of course, something that's anti-upper-class wouldn't be the target of neo-PC ire...so I guess they must think lower, then? Who the hell knows? This the SJW version of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (But wait...'angel' may be monotheism-centric...so...supernatural beings? No...I'm sure that's something-centric too...)
   Second: the large methodological problem floating around in the background of so much of this insanity is the corrupt literary method that passes for thought among such folk. Granted, this time they actually are talking about literature... But the same method is employed even when they aren't. It's just a kind of free-association...except that it represents itself as something more... Just keep spinning out free-associative gobbledy-gook--but gobbledy-gook with the correct political spin...until you emit some words that please the echo chamber...
   Jebus these people. They make the nutty right look almost sane by comparison.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Columbia University Sued By Student (Falsely(?)) Accused Of Rape In The Mattress/"Carry That Weight" Case

Link
Sulkowicz's accusation against Nungesser is likely false, and I think it's reasonable to hold Columbia responsible for at least some of what he's gone through.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Rape Allegations At Columbia: The Sulkowicz / Mattress Case

I haven't been keeping up with this well-known case...but it looks like these allegations are also very likely to be false.

Pappy van Winkle Heist: Local Cops Bust The "Criminal Syndicate" That Swiped The Booze

Whew!

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Florescent Yellow Scourge Banished From Macaroni And Cheese

link
I, for one, feel lucky to have survived the Cheesepocalypse, and am grateful that we can now enjoy a more subdued shade of mac and cheese.

More On The Neo- PC Attack On Andy Pessin At Connecticut College

   Obvious, intentional misinterpretation/misrepresentation of his words, followed by false accusations of racism, dogpiling by campus PCs/SJWs, apparently caving by the administration, and so on. These lunatics have actual power largely because sane people refuse to stand up to them.
 

Neo- PC Follies: Berkeley Edition

Jesus, these people.

Brontosaurus Is Back

As I'm sure you've already heard.

Same-Sex Marriage Kills

Duck, my friends, as you could very well break your nose from the facepalm you are about to perform...
My favorite bit: “It is still too new to do a rigorous causation analysis using statistical methods,”
Wonder how that'll turn out when it does happen?

Tom Toles: Why Are You A Republican?

I've seen the case for being a Democrat made roughly like this before, and I think it's about right.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Jimmy Carter: Losing My Religion For Equality

   I think this is good.
   Though equality with respect to sex has taken great strides in my lifetime, there are still some fairly major ways in which women continue to be represented as humanity's little sister. I'm not religious, but I don't think I could, in good conscience, be part of a religion that perpetuated that idea.
   I don't write about this stuff much because I'm so averse to contemporary feminism. Nevertheless, I think it's important. (And it's something that old-school egalitarian feminism could get behind.)
(h/t S. rex)

Terry Eagleton: The Slow Death Of The University (Or, At Least, The Humanities...)

   Eagleton touches on half of the story here.
   The other half of the story is: the humanities really are currently largely bullshit.
   I mean, I, too, am concerned about universities being turned into vo-tech schools... And the humanities do, in principle, have something important to offer students. However, (and as Fareed Zakaria also notes), the humanities (and some of the social sciences) have earned their reputation for being (a) easy (b) bullshit by dint of long effort. Though e.g. philosophy and econ are largely immune, many other disciplines in and between the humanities and social sciences have long been infected by a mish-mash of bad continental philosophy (the dregs of postmodernism, poststructuralism, critical theory, and others) and far-left politics. It's uncool to see STEM being promoted as the only legitimate course(s) of study...and far more distressing to see the humanities afforded less prestige even than business...but, well, the damage is largely self-inflicted. And the problem is not fictitious.
   Incidentally, an anecdote: I had a student in my office last week, a soon-to-graduate double-major in philosophy and English. Without prompting she enthusiastically reported that she was excited to be studying arguments for and against relativism in my class, because the view, she said, is basically just taken for granted in many of her English classes, and she'd never studied the arguments before. Then she said: And if you question that sort of thing in many English classes, you aren't just wrong...you're a bad person.
   And, though I'm sure I've infected some students with my crackpot views, I don't think I've infected this one... That's a pretty scary report, IMO, though it doesn't exactly surprise me.
   The humanities aren't intrinsically easy, nor intrinsically bullshit...but right now, they're (largely anyway) contingently so.

Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice

link
   I'd say he gets a lot of stuff right. However, I'd disagree on at least two points:
   First, he, like so many other critics of the SJWs or neo-PCs, says that he agrees with their goals. I'd say that's an error. It's not only unclear what "social" justice is supposed to be, but it's fairly clear that the goal of the SJW/neo-PC movement is not actual justice, and is largely not good. Of course if we characterize the goal very vaguely--justice--then we're all all for it. But when we start adding specificity, we see that their actual goals aren't laudable. What they're really aiming at is a far-left illiberal social and political order in which, among other things, any vague claim to victimhood is treated as a trump card, and bourgeois liberal hangups about freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and so on are things of the past. And Lysenkoism...don't forget the Lysenkoism...
   Second, I'd say that the SJW / PC folk are not authoritarians, but totalitarians. I used to deride this distinction long ago made by Jean Kirkpatrick*, but not anymore. Authoritarians want you to do what they say. Totalitarians want you to think what they think. As a conservative friend of mine puts it: the right wants you to behave; the left wants your soul.
   This craziness is ascendant, and I find it horrifying that liberals are generally either indifferent to it or in league with it. This is the same thing that happened during the first PC spasm of the late '80's and early '90's. But this time they have the internet. And, whatever else it is, the internet is a tool for concentrating crazy.
   The first PC spasm was finally defeated when mainstream/centrist liberalism finally became aware of it. I'm hoping this latest spasm follows the same pattern.


* See what they've driven me to? Quoting Jean Kirkpatrick...Jebus...

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Slavoj Zizek: PC As Totalitarianism

link
I think this guy's full of it...but my enemy's enemy and all that...
He's got a point here, I'd say...but it's not like one of the most important 100 or so criticisms one might make of the neo-PC/SJWs...
Also: this video made me sneeze. And I got really tired of watching the guy rub snot on himself.

We Few, We Happy Few, We Band Of Siblings

   So I pointed to that Economist thing...
   But, honestly, I disagree with a lot in that. I don't mind 'he/she', 's/he' or whatever... I kind a think it's bad to always use the masculine as neutral/non-sex-specific. It seems to me to send/reinforce the message that males are the normal/regular humans, and females are...you know...that other kind. The second sex. Humanity's little sister...
   This is a point that was made long before the PCs and SJWs...but also: those folks, loony as they are, aren't wrong about everything. It's really hard to be wrong about everything...
   I've long wished for more non-sex-specific pronouns in English. I actually find it hard to write philosophy without them. I'd use one...if only someone could think some up that don't sound incredibly stupid... But, as yet, no luck. So I continue to do what the Economist admonishes us to avoid--I mix the singular and the plural and so forth.
   As for the title of this post...I use it just because I thought of it only after I'd posted the other one, and I like this one better...

Friday, April 17, 2015

We Few, We Happy Few, We Band Of Brothers And/Or Sisters

Politically correct language
At the Economist