Mark Bauerlein on Jordan Peterson and the hive-mind media:
These cases typify what we might call the Peterson Effect. Peterson brings social science findings to bear on thorny matters of men and women. Those findings run against the progressive goal of eliminating male-female differences. The journalists are unaware of the science, but they are steeped in [progressive] ideology. It’s an obdurate mix of ignorance and certainty.
As we’ve seen, more than once. And which may in part explain why Peterson’s interviews often strike a chord with a wider public, in that they tend to reveal an eerie uniformity of assumptions and begged questions, and vanities, among the media class.
Heather Mac Donald on “diversity” and dishonesty:
Every remotely selective college is desperate to admit as many underrepresented minorities as possible, and brags openly about its diverse student body in marketing literature. Application forms solicit students’ racial identity not to exclude underrepresented minorities, but to favour them… Far from being a handicap, being black or Hispanic is usually worth at least a standard deviation in test scores and GPA in admission to selective colleges… At Harvard, test scores and a GPA that would give an Asian-American applicant only a 25 percent chance of admission provide a 95 percent admission guarantee to a black high school senior, according to data in an ongoing discrimination lawsuit against the university.
Victor Davis Hanson on calculations of “white privilege”:
[In the world of “diversity,”] politics had something to do with skin colour, but how and why was inferred rather than defined. If a white-looking second-generation Arab American put on a head scarf and declaimed against U.S. policy, and if she had a name that was clearly not European in origin, then she too was a “minority” and could advance claims against “white privilege.” But should she dress in assimilated fashion and voice support for the state of Israel, then she probably possessed “white privilege” and joined the victimisers rather than the victims.
And Matthew Blackwell on the megalomaniacal horrors of the Khmer Rouge:
In her book First They Killed My Father, Loung Ung… describes… citizens who cheered the grinning Khmer Rouge soldiers. That celebration lasted only a few hours, until the Khmer Rouge ordered the immediate evacuation of Phnom Penh’s two million people into the countryside. Some people didn’t take the order seriously, especially the elderly who couldn’t walk. But the seriousness and severity of the Khmer Rouge soon became apparent. […]
Cambodia was to return to ‘Year Zero,’ and recover its former glory, removed from the modern world and the unnecessary corruption of its influences. In order to facilitate the eradication of capitalism, the National Bank was blown apart and all forms of money were banned. Marriages were now arranged by the state, and children were taught to obey the government instead of their parents… By May 1978, the effort to produce a communist system of agriculture had failed utterly and the population was starving… Throughout this period, the emptied city of Phnom Penh stood as a ghost town, a reminder of a lost civilisation of business and commerce.
The academic left’s inevitable, rather twisted apologia, mouthed from a safe distance, is also explored.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.