... and what the hell? John Wayne in "The Searchers"?!
Is that "reinforc[ing] bourgeois values" — shooting the eyes out of a corpse of someone who believed that without eyes he'd "wander forever in the spirit world"?
That's as far as I get into the op-ed. Maybe I'll get back to it, but right now I just want to react to the open letter, which has one sentence that deals with the substance of what Professor Wax wrote. That sentence is: "We categorically reject Wax’s claims."
What are Wax's claims that they can be categorically rejected? As summarized in the open letter, the claims are:
1. "All cultures are not equal." That's Wax's prose, and I think it's intended to mean: Not all cultures are equal (as opposed to: there is no culture that is equal to any other culture).
2. "[V]arious social problems would be 'significantly reduce[d]' if 'the academics, media, and Hollywood' would stop the 'preening pretense of defending the downtrodden,' because that would lead to 'restoring the hegemony of the bourgeois culture.'"
3. (Quoting not the co-written op-ed, but Wax speaking in an interview) "'Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans,' because 'Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.'"
I can understand feeling outraged and combative in response to these ideas, but how do you categorically reject them without saying more than "We categorically reject Wax’s claims"? There are no references to studies, no arguments at all. It's just a stark expression of hating these ideas — or fearing them. It feels so insubstantial, as if they're only saying we don't want to talk about this and we want to make you feel the same way. It's not very inspiring to people like me who feel bad about the op-ed and are looking for a way to talk about it. I admit that I don't want to talk about it, but the 33 lawprofs are indignantly proud of their complete refusal to talk about it.
Reasoned discourse is out the window. Expect a future in which everyone leans into the microphone and says "Wrong."
পোস্টগুলি
২৮০টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 280 এর 201 – থেকে 280I just think he has a certain blind spot regarding the massive impact Christianity has had on the development of Wesernt civilization (in both good and bad ways). I don't think you have to be a believer to acknowledge that. He seems to be intent on minimizing or denying its' positive contributions because of his own anti-religious bias.
Fanatical atheism is as intolerant as fanatical religion. My mother was, to her death earlier this year at the age of 92, a hard-core atheist who refused to acknowledge any positive outcomes of any religion and considered it not only a crutch but a scourge to mankind.
As she was dying, she kept calling out to God to help her.
Do minorities still succeed if they ignore Wax's points?
Depends of whether or not they get an NBA contract.
Charles Murray says, too many of the successful classes do not preach what they practice, preferring "ecumenical niceness" to being judgmental.
There also seems to be a fatal flaw in Left thinking about culture that it is genetic and immutable. They equate culture with race. This implies that blacks have always been gangsters and can't escape this habit. This is obviously contradicted by blacks that have in fact escaped being gangsters and become TV announcers or actors or brain surgeons. It is also contradicted by the fact that immigrants from all over the world have adopted American culture and values.
Buwaya-- you are really pushing a button by referring to peasant behaviors.
Jefferson called these people "yeoman farmers", but essentially their values are the values promoted by the middle class, made up of strivers who were trying to improve their lot in life for themselves and their families. They embraced thrift, hard work, civic involvement, education, family formation, personal responsibility, deferred gratification, wealth transmission down generations, and civil order. They were fundamentally conservative, desiring to live in an established order where their lives, liberty and property would be preserved. Read a life of Benjamin Franklin to get the drift. Pilgrim's Progress and Poor Richard's Almanac were their handbooks. Those values translate very well into 21st century life, as many commenters here can attest.
You can call them peasant behaviors if you want to, but I think you are getting in your own way.
"You can call them peasant behaviors if you want to"
I do. That is how traditional village life went - the points that Wax raises.
And it is true not just of "yeoman farmers", that is, independent small landowners, but of the huge mass of tenant farmers also. That is, the bulk of civilized humanity through most of history.
Being a peasant is an honorable estate. We are, nearly all of us, of peasant stock.
Buwaya--duly noted.
Go ahead, try to get a leftist to admit that American culture is superior to Nazi Germany's.
The Leftist would counter with ...but who's the REAL enemy?"
It's time to re-run Auntie Mame. For some reason it has been memory holed by the powers that be. But it has all these issues front and center.
...but of the huge mass of tenant farmers also. That is, the bulk of civilized humanity through most of history.
That would describe the Scots-Irish who populated the colonial frontier. Andrew Jackson's people.
Peasants were close to the land and had learned that you must not eat your seed corn.
Families had to be large because children died. Children were also useful labor around the farm. My grandfather was one of 12 and my father one of 10.
Nobody was lazy because they would starve,.
Young single people worked as hired hands or hired girls. You see them on census forms.
There were city dwellers but, until the 20th century, they were a small minority.
What would be interesting would be to see how many would survive an EMP attack.
It would be like the Black Death.
Cracker there was a terrible inequality of promised land after the war as only 4,000 to 5500 African-Americans received land vs over 1.6 million white families ( this includes awards and Homesteading Act) but those black descendants of land owners are often the ones who have had success in life. So in answer to your question it is a number of factors including Wax's points and what I found in my minority students who succeed --true grit.
"All cultures are not equal." That's Wax's prose, and I think it's intended to mean: Not all cultures are equal.
It's also sort of a "duh." My own reaction was to suggest that the signatories decide next to categorically reject gravity and go try to fly off the top of a tall building.
The "bourgeois culture" is basically the product of trial and error over centuries, resulting in a culture that offers -- used to offered -- financial encouragement to talented individuals to work hard for the general betterment of society. Yes, I get that for some people their talent is running fast while holding a football or hitting the open 3 pointer, and for others their talent is for defrauding people (Bernie Madoff). But on the whole, we have had a culture where life has gotten better for ordinary people when we compare what they've had in the past with what they have today.
Michael please read more carefully-- I did not ridicule the middle class, who values I share, but a system of monopoly capitalism which has created huge gaps between the middle class and the ultra-rich monopolist who exploit our desires and exhaust our energies while producing addicting drugs for profit to keep us numb.
What's amusing here is the multi-tiered levels of denial of reality on display here. First we have the denial of the fundamental fact that culture has its basis in biology. Ask how many lizards play the harpsichord, and you realize that there are aspects of culture for which you must be biologically prepared. Living in cities evolves you to live in cities. Populations that have not had thousands of years of living in cities are not very good at civilization. BUT WE DENY THAT!
On the other hand, there are certain attitudes, or simply habits, that are learned, and some of them are much more conducive to success in life than others. BUT WE DENY THIS AS WELL!
Which leaves one to say, nothing is any better or worse than anything else, and anyone who says otherwise is VERY VERY BAD!
"Populations that have not had thousands of years of living in cities "
There aren't any populations like that, that evolved living in cities.
Historically cities were population sinks, where populations went to die, they were not self sustaining - ref. "History and Geography of Human Genes", Luigi Cavalli-Sforza.
Nearly everyone alive today has the bulk of their ancestry from the peasantry.
did not ridicule the middle class, who values I share, but a system of monopoly capitalism which has created huge gaps between the middle class and the ultra-rich monopolist who exploit our desires and exhaust our energies while producing addicting drugs for profit to keep us numb.
Yes! And also, the best solution to income inequality is massive immigration to keep the prole wages down! I know this because I massively sympathize with the middle class, and I have no intention of harming their economic interests! On account if I am so much smarter than they are about what is best for them.
@RV,
"...the ultra-rich monopolist who exploit our desires and exhaust our energies while producing addicting drugs for profit to keep us numb."
The ultr-rich monopolists in our country are a handful of real live people, including:
Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
Jeff Bezos
Oprah Winfrey
Mark Zuckerberg
Sam Walton's kids
Steven Spielberg
George Lucas
Mark Cuban
Phil Knight
Do you really, truly believe that those really rich people are the enemies of a functioning society? I don't.
BTW, Cavalli-Sforza's rule of cities describes modern urban populations inability to reproduce very well. Nearly all developed nations today have the bulk of their populations living in some sort of urban environment.
Cavalli-Sforzas explanations for the observation are speculative (excess deaths due to disease morbidity in close quarters in previous centuries due to poor sanitation, etc.), but not examined. There could well be other reasons, perhaps related to human instinct.
Ha ha! I am not sure if I read the comment right. on my phone in a taxi, but somebody here made a great point. If all cultures are equal, then why all of the effort to try to destroy our culture? How can communism be better than capitalism? Why should we have fought a war with the south over slavery when we had no valid position to judge from?
I have said it before, but if you were currently in a culture that praciticed slavery and you were enslaved, who in America would you look to for help? The Democrats and their hashtags, or Republicans and their realism. The parties have not changed, even if Google has decided that Lincoln wasn't a Republican.
Those evil pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that keep me healthy with a condition that killed my Grandpa in his 60s, and made my Dad's life a little miserable.
The ultra-rich monopolists in our country are a handful of real live people,
And guess which political party most of them support.
Luke Lea: I'm beginning to suspect (to crimethink) that multiculturalism with its identity politics and mindless celebration of diversity is a totalitarian ideology in disguise.
See "contention vs. consensus culture".
Mutliculturalism can indeed be an ideology, but it's also the case that multiculturalism, ideology or not, requires a more conformist, "consensus" culture to keep the lid on. Pretty much by definition it has no place for the free-wheeling cultural style that gives freedom of speech a higher place than non-offensiveness in the hierarchy of civic values. Everybody needs to zip it and play nice.
And guess which political party most of them support.
The Waltons, the only Republicans on that list that I know of, have the only business that serves the working classes. In order to run up the number of Republican supporting billionaires, they put in the Waltons multiple times, and count the same Koch Bros money twice, they count it once for each brother. The rest of the billionaires are all Democrats.
Michael K. wrote:
"Nobody was lazy because they would starve,.
Young single people worked as hired hands or hired girls. You see them on census forms.
There were city dwellers but, until the 20th century, they were a small minority."
Perhaps all this social upheaval was inevitable - when the great mass of humanity lives a certain way by certain rules for thousands of years and in the space of a few generations, the old ways of life disappear, how can it be possible to avoid disruption and confusion? Not only have we not adjusted to the technological revolution, it's possible we never fully adjusted to the Industrial one.
"Historically cities were population sinks, "
True until very recently. Probably 100 years although they do seem to be regressing as in Chicago's case.
I love that "wrong" thing. No wonder he won the election. Plus hearing Hillary's voice makes me so glad that the one guy who could beat her ran against her. I don't see Rubio breaking down the "blue wall." Maybe I will go back to YouTube and watch the news anchors start to cry again in their "unbiased" election night reporting!
"what I found in my minority students who succeed --true grit."
I may have a different experience as my students were medical students but the two factors were foreign birth and middle class family life.
Most of my successful black medical students were either West Indian or African.
One of my very rare American raised black students played water polo in college. How middle class is that ?
On the PennLaw website, I counted 277 members of the law faculty. A side benefit of Amy Wax's op-ed is she exposed 33 of them as either mendacious or incompetent.
"the effects of a consumer driven capitalist society that privileges profit and monopoly for the few"
The funny thing - this claim literally has no meaning....
"Capitalism" - means freedom to earn, keep and trade the fruits of your labor.
No meaning to the term "consumer driver capitalist society".
No meaning to the claim that free society (free market economy), "privileges" profit or monopoly.
The people on left in the USA are utterly brainwashed. They are dumber than a doorknob.
"a system of monopoly capitalism which has created huge gaps between the middle class and the ultra-rich monopolist who exploit our desires and exhaust our energies while producing addicting drugs for profit to keep us numb."
Name monopolies, please.
Explain in what way our free market economy is structured to produce monopolies.
Explain what you mean by "exploit our desires" - and which "addicting drugs" are produced by monopolies.
"all cultures are equal":
I remember arguing with a liberal student in college some decades ago. She told me exactly that - but I noticed that she was merely quoting something she heard at school.
I asked her a simple question - "By what standard did you compare cultures when you made this conclusion?" This one question completely silenced her. She never thought of this.
"Nobody was lazy because they would starve"
The behaviors that Wax describes aren't exclusive to the "bourgeoisie", as Buwaya mentions. They are the behaviors of any successful person in the lower rungs of society, down where you don't have vast resources to shield you from the effects of your behavior and you need to discipline yourself to get ahead or maintain your position.
It's interesting and sad that in modern America, low socioeconomic status seems to have become synonymous with "trash".
Public schools, MSM, majority of colleges, Hollywood, and most of Democratic Party are pushing one cultural viewpoint.
It seems to have been pushed since the early 60's.
Can this be changed?
By what standard did you compare cultures when you made this conclusion?" This one question completely silenced her. She never thought of this.
This is usually how it goes arguing with liberals in person where they can't just disappear when asked a tough question, like they do on the internet. But still they will say that they are sure that other people have thought of the answer to that so you are still wrong.
Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later.
he people on left in the USA are utterly brainwashed. They are dumber than a doorknob.
He claims he teaches college. That's what is so scary and it explains the low level of discourse we get from college students these days who are so poorly equipped to defend their ideas that they require "safe spaces" to protect them from the need to exercise skills they don't have.
Oh, my favorite line from going back and looking at election videos was a guy who said "No matter how you felt about Hillary, you couldn't help but have sympathy for her when ...." I don't remember the rest because I broke out laughing so loud.
"it explains the low level of discourse we get from college students these days who are so poorly equipped to defend their ideas "
Many of them are repeating the crap they hear from their professors like parrots, and I guess it's the same crap they heard in school too. The poor kids are not smart enough (or brave enough) to question what they hear and are expected to repeat without a second thought. They are conditioned like primitive animals - move right, you get spanked, move left, you get a carrot. A Pavlovian response, one would say. I am pretty sure though that smart students can see this through, and eventually, there will be enough rebels among the young to undermine this system.
I don't think it will be very difficult to make the kids turn against the liberal professors and teachers. Just tell them - "Don't be a teacher's pet, question authority, don't trust people in power..." The thing is that liberal teachers often gets very upset when questioned - which will make them easy prey to students. Nothing entertains the kids more than showing to them that a simple and common sense question would make the teacher raving mad and spitting curses...
The revolution against the liberal over-lords is coming. It will be televised.
Dear professor,
Your column on this makes no sense--you criticize the letter writers for "categorically" rejecting the op-ed's arguments, yet on the other hand, you say you've refused to read the op-ed. How much more categorically can you reject the op-ed than to refuse to even read it?
IMO, the op-ed is stating basic common sense that used to represent the values overwhelmingly extant in America, until the liberal left went about demolishing as many of them as we allow them to. Can we say that inner city Blacks are now better off, for instance, through out of wedlock births, multi-generational welfare,refusal to be educated, lack of respect for law and order etc? Only if you wish them to destroy them, I think.
Public schools, MSM, majority of colleges, Hollywood, and most of Democratic Party are pushing one cultural viewpoint.
It seems to have been pushed since the early 60's.
Can this be changed?
A war might do it. Especially one that is lost.
"Public schools, MSM, majority of colleges, Hollywood, and most of Democratic Party are pushing one cultural viewpoint."
Counter-cultural revolution. It can be done. Promote the politically incorrect rebels among the students. Push the line: question authority! question your teachers!
Funny thing, to me, is that it is highly likely that at least most of the protesting law profs probably sign onto, and personally accept, Wax's rules for success - the ones that they categorically reject publicly. They likely came from stable families, and attempt to raise their kids in 2 parent families too. Being a law prof requires, at a minimum, a JD degree, which means at least 7 years of college and 19+ years of education. Probably more, if they are younger profs. Plus a year or two clerking, and maybe some Big Law experience. They likely pick the schools for their kids, at least, in part, by their ability to get their kids into elite colleges. Don't do drugs, and used alcohol in moderation, at least until tenured. Etc.
Rank hypocrisy. But the same rank hypocrisy practiced by much of the left in this country, that practices the very same morals and life rules that they condemn in the American middle class.
Slightly off-thread, but "The Searchers" has totally anachronistic weaponry. It's set circa 1867 or 1868, but the handguns you see in use are Colt Model 1873 Single Action Army (aka "Peacemakers") with 5 1/2 inch barrels. To my knowledge they were only available with 7 1/2 inch barrels until some time around 1875, making the anachronism even worse. In 1868 everyone would be using Colt Model 1860 cap and ball revolvers, Colt Model 1851 or 1861 cap and ball revolvers (the "Navy Colt"), Remington cap and ball revolvers, or, less likely, the partly brass Confederate handguns like the Spiller and Burr or Griswold and Gunnison. All cap and ball. No cartridge revolvers.
John Wayne's rifle is even worse -- it's a Winchester Model 1892. A great gun, but hard to acquire in 1868.
Uk has same issue, but underclass is White. A benefits class and has same issue of single parent household.
http://danielhg.blogspot.ca/2006/11/british-white-underclass.html?m=1
Chavs is the term?
The Hollywood prop team had trouble identifying legitimate guns. They probably all should have Walker Colts and Henry rifles.
I have a feeling the left has over played their hand so much in the culture wars, it's causing people to red pill.
And with conservative / libertarian sites, it's easy to get another view. Reading instapundit, and his guest bloggers such as AA, has been very educational personally. Sarah Hoyt has made me more aware of leftist influence, having grown up in Portugal she very sensitive and gives a lot of background.
@Michael K, the Walker Colt was obsolete by that time and the country was awash in Remingtons and Model 1860 or 1861 Colts following the Civil War. Have you ever held a Walker? It's a heavy sonofagun and not very suitable for belt wear (ignore "Lonesome Dove").
For rifles they should have used the Henry or the 1866 Winchester, which is distinguished from the 1873 because the receiver in the '66 is brass while the '73 is case-hardened steel. Or else use breech loaders like the Spencer or the Sharps or the Smith carbine. But no '92.
"a system of monopoly capitalism which has created huge gaps between the middle class and the ultra-rich monopolist who exploit our desires and exhaust our energies while producing addicting drugs for profit to keep us numb."
Ever notice how hard liquor commercials are now shown on TV? Ever notice legalized POT is supported by the NYT and all the liberals elite & is coming/here in various states? Ever notice that we have an opiate epidemic?
Look at the income stats. The share of national income going to the Upper 1% has SKYROCKETED in the last 30 years.
But of course, you don't care. You Mr. Dumb Free-Enterprise Uber alles who'd suck Bloombergs or Zuckerberg's Dick because you own a small business or you're a trust fund baby. Or you're a moron.
I just posted a comment about Ike thinking General Robert E. Lee was a great man. I think about those men. Patriots, smart, courageous men who loved their country. And then I think about greed-heads like Zuckerberg or shits like Romney.
Michael K. wrote: They probably all should have Walker Colts and Henry rifles.
There were only ever about 1,100 genuine Walker Colts produced. They were made for a Texas volunteer cavalry unit of about 500 men divided into four troops. They were designed to be issued in pairs and carried in bucket holsters attached to the trooper's saddle. The Walker wasn't a very good pistol. They had a tendency to explode due to poor quality steel and faulty fabrication techniques. If they didn't explode they would eventually fall apart from the sheer stress of being fired. An unknown number of fake Walkers were made, more than the real thing by far. These fakes were even more dangerous to the shooter.
Augustus McCrae carried a Colt's Dragoon, another very large horse pistol, but smaller than the Walker. In the period immediately following the Civil War, the most popular firearm in the Old West was the Navy Model .36 followed by the Remington .44 — both were "cap and ball" revolvers. The Colt Navy was cheaper and less strongly built, but more comfortable to carry. "Wild Bill" Hickock packed two .36 Colt Navy pistols in a cummerbund. When Colt's New Model Army (aka the Peacemaker) came out it was a bit expensive to buy and shoot (metallic cartridges were very costly compared to "cap and ball") so it took a few years to become a legendary success. Many gunsmiths offered cartridge conversion Remingtons for about half the price of a Colt. Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name" was often seen to wield one of these cartridge Remingtons. He may have been a terrible hack director, but Leone was well-versed in Western lore.
Brylun is getting at something very important. Getting to school or work on time, getting married before you have children, etc., aren't inherently racist standards -- UNLESS you believe that certain races are less capable of complying with them. But that would mean that the people condemning these standards are, themselves, racist.
That can't be articulated out loud, so the only recourse is to disagree categorically.
Wildswan: I believe the most famous George Santayana quote makes the best counterargument to the position that you've noted.
"The first million is the hardest." It's an old saying.
"monopoly capitalism"
An oxymoron.
Monopolies in a free market are shortlived. Apples Iphone lasted two or three generations before competition appeared to dilute their monopoly. Why? Because Apple was unsuccessful in getting third parties to declare that their product needed to be regulated. Free markets are very good at destroying monopolies even government protected monopolies. Which, I think, are the ones you object to.
sparrow said...
Just compare the colonies derived from England to those derived from France or Spain and you can see the strong mark of culture and the moderating effects of English common law.
I've always thought it a shame that England didn't get ahold of C. and S. America.
exiledonmainstreet said...
I have posted the very long lists of Christian and Catholic scientists here more than one.
There were plenty of them and I didn't say otherwise. They didn't discover much of anything (very basic astronomy, the simplest of optics and anatomy - stuff most 7-year-olds know today), and they were OK as long as their findings didn't contradict Christian superstitions, as Galileo did.
Nowadays just about everything in science is incompatible with bible stories and superstitions, which is why "Among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total."
buwaya said...
To a large degree "science" is just a cultural reaction to technical empiricism. Trying to describe WHY things work.
Trying to describe magnetism without knowledge of electrons is rather futile; when you toss in relativity I'm not sure anyone really understands "Fucking magnets, how do they work?"
jwl said...
I love telling belligerent atheists that roger bacon, a franciscan friar, created the scientific method.
Sort-of, no kidding and so what?
He was also into alchemy and astrology - should we take those seriously? BTW, Bacon was arrested by church goons.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can’t scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." -- J.H.
"I believe the most famous George Santayana quote makes the best counterargument to the position that you've noted."
True, but that quote is part of the Bad Past, so the snowflakes are probably never exposed to it.
When Colt's New Model Army (aka the Peacemaker) came out it was a bit expensive to buy and shoot (metallic cartridges were very costly compared to "cap and ball") so it took a few years to become a legendary success.
Had the Union adopted the Henry repeating rifle, the war would probably been over by 1862. Grant's army in 1862 was still armed with converted flintlocks and other random calibers. The Confederates initially were better armed but as the war went on, they scavenged the Union muskets for themselves,
The South never had the industrial capacity to make metallic cartridges. The Henry and Spencers would have been useless to them.
By Antietam, some Union units were armed with Henrys that had been bought by officers with private funds.
@Michael K, the thing that put Colt ahead of everyone else was their bright idea to chamber it for the Winchester .44-40 cartridge. One caliber for two guns simplified life for the hardware store owner and cowboy alike.
I have a minor disagreement regarding "converted flintlocks" and "random calibers." After 1842 the various models of Springfield rifles were designed as percussion-fired guns, and ditto the Enfield rifles they bought from England. Both North and South standardized on .58 caliber in their rifled muzzle-loaders, which made life easy for Confederates early in the war after they forced Union forces to retreat and leave behind their supplies. However there were a few .54 caliber (13.5 mm) rifles purchased from Europe. Where there were a wide variety of calibers was in the many different carbines, which ranged from .50 caliber to .56 Spencers.
But you're right on metallic cartridges and repeating rifles. Union regiments equipped with repeating rifles had the first force multipliers, had the Union generals in Ordnance recognized it at the time.
Professors debating like Trump... but they're somehow much much better educated and more intelligent... WRONG! ;)
Hyphenated American said...
"Name monopolies, please.
Explain in what way our free market economy is structured to produce monopolies.
Explain what you mean by "exploit our desires" - and which "addicting drugs" are produced by monopolies."
Also for the record; most of the people calling for breakups of google, ebay, amazon, facebook, et all are free market supporters. Not lefties.
I think Althouse has missed the point of the picture. It is from a WESTERN. There really are people who think like that.
SH
A free market supporter is someone who understands why competitive markets are good things, not someone who supports any and every state of any and every market. We support competition. Free marketers broke up standard oil.
Quick, ask one of those law professors if Islamic culture was superior to Western culture in the 9th century. Bet their answer wouldn't be, "Of course not, all cultures are equal."
One thing that the responders to the bourgeoise editorial, the BLM movement, and all of the agitation on college campuses represent: the absolute failure of the government programs that were designed to create a politico-economic environment of equal opportunity.
Affirmative Action, massive government welfare programs, massive spending on minority education. The architects of these programs are admitting massive failure. THey are, of course, not saying this directly but this is the logical conclusion of all of their rhetoric and calls for action. THEY HAVE FAILED.
Unfortunately, the same architects of this 60 year failure are now demanding, essentially by violence, a new paradigm going forward: equal outcome. Their actions are trying to create an environment were Affirmative Action is no longer good enough. That is, that an employer should give precedence to a minority candidate of equal (or close enough) qualifications. Instead, they want to substitute the requirement that you hire someone without qualifications because of their identity group. What do you think the elimination of the study of Western Classics like Shakespeare substituting obscure works by "people of color" is?
Sometimes, I think the proper course is to just let them do what they want. Look at the major cities in the United States. They are controlled by the Democratic Party (the Left Wing of the Democratic Party), the Democratic Party completely controls the city including its police, fire, city council, administration, and education, and they have controlled these cities for generations. In my 53 years, my home city of MInneapolis has had a Republican mayor for exactly ONE day. If I thought we could confine the problems to these areas, maybe it would not be that big of a deal, but the reality is that these are forces intent on ruining this country, dragging the productive people, minorities included, down.
If all cultures are equal, remind me again why we are tearing down statues of the southern US early 19th century culture?
'Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.'".. Germany is half Catholic and the richest zone is catholic. France. Italy is part of the G7.
And Shintoism did not stop Japan
their findings didn't contradict Christian superstitions, as Galileo did. .. it was not about religion but personal politics. Bellarmine slapped Galileo´s wrist in the first trial and that was all but a powerful Bishop wanted his head
A big advance of evolution was done by a Catholic Monk, and the Roman Church accepted evolution in the early 50s
I'm reminded of 'A Few Good Men' and the scene where Demi Moore and Tom Cruise argue about I strenuously object after I object gets shot down
Luke Lea said...
"I'm just rereading Orwell's 1984. Crimethought, Newspeak, Ignorance is Strength"
Its just Marxism's class consciousness expanded with extra categories. Unfortunately; it is popular with a lot of people too young to realise this or remember what Marxists are like with power. The people pushing it have also worked hard at not having that taught and/or implying anyone that does talk about it is a McCarthyist or a nut. ie; Socialism is the post office.
Blogger Ken B said...
"A free market supporter is someone who understands why competitive markets are good things, not someone who supports any and every state of any and every market. We support competition. Free marketers broke up standard oil."
I agree. It is the left that is MIA in breaking up modern monopolies. Despite all their complaining about them in theory.
One of the problems with "feelings" is that idiots can totally misinterpret what they see or hear. For example, a few days ago a university retreat got canceled because of a banana peel in a tree. A while back a prof got in big trouble for using the word "niggardly". A scottish guy at a gov office got in trouble (fired?) for using the word "clan", talking about his clan's insignia and colors (thought is was Klan)--and trying to explain it did no good. People's feelings are hurt over absurd lies like 1/4 college women are raped. There are enough real things to be upset about but when any old nonsense can get one in trouble it is rather terrifying. When I hear someone say something crazy in person I just find an excuse to slip away.
As to Wax, it is so obvious that these 33 critics do not believe what they say. The number of people who believed the Soviet Union was better than the US and actually went there is tiny, perhaps a couple of hundred over 100 yrs, yet praise of communism and Russia has been vocal for 100 yrs (the NYT has just been printing nostalgic articles this summer)--antifa even carries the communist flag in marches!
An easier way to find out if a leftie really believes all cultures are equal: ask him if he thinks small-town Alabama culture is equal to San Francisco or Portland, OR culture, then watch him sputter.
Notfornuthin but that b/w photo of the Duke isn't even from The Searchers. It's from I would guess a much later Wayne vehicle like Rio Lobo or Big Jake based on his sideburns. In The Searchers he wears a few different hats (even a sombrero) but not that one.
Do you think they chose to reference The Searchers because Wayne plays an avowed racist?
I'm disappointed that resident NYC pseudo-dissident poseur Cookie hasn't weighed in yet with his edgy coffee shop philosopher takedown of this bourgeois racist professor. He's really really s-m-r-t.
To answer AA's original question - what does the adverb "categorically" mean - I don't believe it is necessarily a throwaway word. It seems to mean that the 33 signers are rejecting the entire category of things of which the item in question is one example. There is no way to salvage this thing with small modifications, because it is so wrong-headed that anything remotely similar would also be rejected.
The writers are therefore allowing no chance for Wax to redeem or explain her position. This seems like the modern equivalent of the practice of shunning a transgressor within a religious community. It says, "you are dead to me," without invoking that antique language. This is consistent with the overall tone of the letter, which as has been noted gives no argument or explanation.
This lines up perfectly with the fact that these are folks who want the power to define a system of morality defended by the force of the government, but not (horrors!) on the foundation of any system of religion. They want to make up the rules as the go along, and force anyone crossing the line to repent in public.
They don't have to explain or convince, since obedience is expected. Wax has been excommunicated.
Ann Althouse is triggered by a photo of John Wayne.
I can state CATEGORICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY that the ANTI-RACISM has now become a worse problem than the RACISM, in the same way that the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act turned sobriety in to a much more worse and deadly problem than alcohol intoxication ever was or ever could be.
The Anti-Racism of the Progressive Marxists is worse than the disease.
it means they *really* don't like 'great again'
it means how dare you ask which side of history this is
it is *really* easy to tell a "in the 1960s..." story about everything you don't like
it's absolutely got to be the best time in history for talented, hard-working people who serve Moloch
i recommend you read the op-ed; it seems significant to me that this is a flank from which "good respectable people" can assail the SJs, with little risk of being branded (effectively) as racist hitlers
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন