davidthompson: Elsewhere (96)

David Thompson

Search

June 25, 2013

Elsewhere (96)

Jim Treacher notes the totally non-racist racial fixations at Netroots Nation, where the ‘progressive’ left rubs its collective rhubarb:

Sharon Kyle writes, “For social justice advocates, Netroots Nation 13 is the place to be… I was a member of the panel selection committee. As we prepared to make our selections, we were instructed to dismiss any panel that was comprised entirely of white males.” Good idea. Everybody knows that people with the same skin colour are all alike, and people of the same gender are all alike. What happens when you put together a bunch of people with the same skin colour and the same gender? I hope I never have to find out! I mean, what’s diverse about that? It looks really bad on camera. Well, that’s assuming they’re white males. If not, the preceding paragraph is racist. See, we must have diversity of appearance, not of thought. We need to get people of all races, colours, and creeds to come together and agree with Sharon Kyle. What’s the point of engaging in meaningful dialogue if other people are going to disagree with you?

When faced with strident “diversity” blather, it may help to remember the acronym LETELU. Looks Exotic, Thinks Exactly Like Us.

CJ Ciaramella* mingles with the moral heavyweights at Netroots Nation:

There were “80 panels, 40 training sessions, inspiring keynotes, film screenings and other engaging sessions designed to educate, stimulate and inspire the nation’s next generation of progressive leaders,” according to the conference website… I found myself at a panel titled: Free your Ass: Defining and Creating a Progressive Sexual Culture. Panellist Favianna Rodriguez, a new media artist, talked about her explorations into polyamory and kink. “I’ll close it out with this image I created of an awesome sex party I went to,” Rodriguez said, displaying one of her paintings. It was full of psychedelic colours and an arrangement of Picasso-style figures entangled in various sex acts. Kind of like Guernica, but with erections.

Chris Snowdon on “health inequalities” and unspoken causes:

Public health folk would argue that such choices are not rational (because of hyperbolic discounting and suchlike) and sociologists would argue that they are not free (because accidents of birth make them more likely to choose the unhealthy option). I have little time for such arguments. Accusations of irrational consumption invariably revolve around the moral judgement of the accuser while choices, even if constrained by imperfect information and financial circumstance, are still choices. The fact that the smoking rate is higher in Glasgow than Sevenoaks, for instance, in no way predisposes a Glaswegian to smoke. It is not ‘victim-blaming’ to point this out.

Tim Worstall adds this.

And Jim Goad is amused by the cannibalism of the self-designated “oppressed”:

So much for transcending labels and viewing one another as individuals. These people want to institutionalise such labels. They balk at the concept of “assigned identity,” yet they also seem unable to live without it. So many of these multitudinous oppressed “identities” seem like nothing more than cheap cloaks to mask nakedly annoying personalities. People with bad personalities seem to have a built-in defence mechanism that makes them believe you actually hate them for any other possible reason besides their bad personalities. With all the banter about oppression, it’s hard to think of anything that stifles free speech and free expression more than such strident humourlessness.

Readers who wish to behold the endpoint of competitive victimhood are welcome to revisit this glorious incident. Part 2 here. And, because you’ll need them, some explanatory notes.

As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets. [ *Added via the comments. ]

Posted at 09:05 in Anthropology, Art, Politics, Psychodrama | Permalink

Comments

What's the point of engaging in meaningful dialogue if other people are going to disagree with you?

Snort.

Posted by: Anna | June 25, 2013 at 09:46

this glorious incident.

How did I miss that one?

Oh crap there's a second video. Is it too early to drink?

Posted by: Anna | June 25, 2013 at 10:51

Oh crap there’s a second video. Is it too early to drink?

I’m not sure a lunchtime G&T would be psychedelic enough. To capture the full flavour of that particular argument, it’s probably best to inhale butane.

Posted by: David | June 25, 2013 at 10:57

These people want to institutionalise such labels.

Want to find a racist? Visit a university.

Posted by: Another John | June 25, 2013 at 14:39

Want to find a racist? Visit a university.

It wouldn’t be a bad place to start. The Clown Quarter, certainly. People who obsess over race in the name of eliminating racism do tend to have attitudes that, seen from outside, are condescending, question-begging or simply absurd. These, after all, are people who believe that the way to get past small differences in physiology is to continually fixate on small differences in physiology. Which doesn’t sound like a recipe for mental health and happiness.

Incidentally, I reviewed Indoctrinate U, a film I strongly recommend.

[ Added: ]

Behold our intellectual betters:

Republicans oppose abortion because they fear losing the white majority in America, claimed a University of Pennsylvania professor. Salamishah Tillet, an associate English professor at UPenn, made the comments during a recent appearance on MSNBC. She said that Republicans didn’t like abortion because they want white people to have more babies and perpetuate the race. “Women’s bodies, white women’s bodies in particular, are a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege,” she said. Kirsten Powers of Fox News criticised Tillet’s argument, pointing out that black women have far more abortions than white women. “If you were a white supremacist, you would actually support abortion,” said Powers. Tillet also teaches in two other departments at UPenn: Africana Studies and Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies.

Hence the term “Clown Quarter.”

Posted by: David | June 25, 2013 at 15:01

Wasn't fewer black babies a big motivation for Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood? So Powers was correct and Ms. Tillet had it backwards.

Posted by: RickC | June 25, 2013 at 19:30

So much for transcending labels and viewing one another as individuals. These people want to institutionalise such labels.

It’s been noted more than once that institutions can perpetuate the problems they’re supposed to solve, sometimes to maintain their own funding, status, leverage, etc. Certainly this applies to many institutions run by, and for, racial grievance racketeers. How else would we explain the “teaching” of, for instance, Dr Caprice Hollins? A woman who dismisses expectations of punctuality and responsibility as “cultural racism,” and claims that “students of colour” needn’t learn the grammar and fluency she herself enjoys - and which employers usually expect of job candidates. These basic skills, among others, are apparently “white values.” Instead of encouraging “students of colour” to articulate their thoughts and plan ahead, we must, she says, see people as “racial beings” and “teach [children] to view the world through a racial lens.”

Not the most obvious recipe for personal fulfilment and success in life. But then, what would Caprice Hollins, a publicly funded race hustler, stand to gain from the success of children with brown skin?

Posted by: David | June 25, 2013 at 20:05

The bull dyke wins, I take it? Sweet!

Posted by: mojo | June 25, 2013 at 20:56

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/swedish-court-hands-out-light-sentence-muslim-teen-rapists

Posted by: AC1 | June 25, 2013 at 23:01

Twin-headed monster - Nanny state and “obesity and junk food lawyers”...

A common maneuver in the attack is to establish tax-funded studies that document a public health risk. (Note: Tax funding does not invalidate results, but it should raise the same concerns about bias as corporate funding does.) Then, once health risks are established, the discussion turns quickly to targeting the risk and controlling the problem through regulation. For example, The New England Journal of Medicine conducted a poll on whether sugar-sweetened beverages should be regulated by government. Results from the studies are also used to promote tax-funded “awareness” campaigns to alert the public.

This lays the groundwork for the health problem to be addressed by laws or regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Typical solutions include raising the cost of a good through additional taxes and/or restricting access to it. At the same time, “healthy” alternatives can be encouraged through subsidies or favorable regulation.

http://dailyreckoning.com/coca-capitulation/

Posted by: Reed | June 26, 2013 at 07:12

More from the gathering of titans called Netroots Nation:

There were “80 panels, 40 training sessions, inspiring keynotes, film screenings and other engaging sessions designed to educate, stimulate and inspire the nation’s next generation of progressive leaders,” according to the conference website… I found myself at a panel titled: Free your Ass: Defining and Creating a Progressive Sexual Culture. Panellist Favianna Rodriguez, a new media artist, talked about her explorations into polyamory and kink. “I’ll close it out with this image I created of an awesome sex party I went to,” Rodriguez said, displaying one of her paintings. It was full of psychedelic colours and an arrangement of Picasso-style figures entangled in various sex acts. Kind of like Guernica, but with erections.

Progress, comrades!

[ Added to post. ]

Posted by: David | June 26, 2013 at 07:25

Penn and Teller, Bullshit - College

Part 1.
The race-hustler under the natty beret at 8:20 is so full of bullshit I don't think even he believes the stuff he's shovelling, but he's got a (handsomely paid) job to justify... "Another name for a University is a plantation...this place is evil".

"My mamma always told me, don't listen to negative people". Ha! Jackass. He knows it's all a game, the real shame is on the people who entertain this fool and allow him to peddle this toxic nonsense amongst impressionable minds.

For the more 'touchy-feely' end of the diversity scam, please welcome 'cultural auditor' Dr. Edwin Nichols, and kiss goodbye to $87 grand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUDAxWlNrQ4

Part 2.
"You have a right to your agenda, to say what you want to say, free speech right, we totally support it...and if you join those gentlemen, nobody's gonna hassle you. If you stay over here, there's gonna be a problem"

...or, "Excuse me, may I see your free speech permit, please".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESc0z1Tbwfk

Posted by: Reed | June 26, 2013 at 08:56

"I'll close it out with this image I created of an awesome sex party I went to," Rodriguez said, displaying one of her paintings.

I'm so glad I clicked on that. I've been educated, stimulated and inspired.

Posted by: carbon based lifeform | June 26, 2013 at 09:19

So many of these multitudinous oppressed "identities" seem like nothing more than cheap cloaks to mask nakedly annoying personalities.

I need an excuse and it's all your fault.

Posted by: Jack | June 26, 2013 at 10:09

So many of these multitudinous oppressed “identities” seem like nothing more than cheap cloaks to mask nakedly annoying personalities.

I need an excuse and it’s all your fault.

If you create a social excuse for what is essentially passive-aggressive behaviour, it’ll tend to attract people who like being passive-aggressive. These obnoxious personalities will now have an institutional pretext for exerting power over others. In terms of dynamic and rationalisation, it’s almost like a wife-beating scenario: “If you weren’t oppressing me and making me so angry, I wouldn’t have to keep hitting you and telling you to shut up.” And worse, many young people will learn to adopt passive-aggressive strategies to get what they want, usually deference. The result being a rapid propagation of bad faith. It’s the ‘progressive’ left in action.

[ Edited. ]

Posted by: David | June 26, 2013 at 10:39

Salamishah's views are interesting, and not just because of they are irrational.

Apparently she believes that white people having white children is a racist act, perpetuating "white supremacy". Perhaps having a white baby should be treated as prima facie evidence of having committed a hate crime.

Posted by: Steve 2 | June 26, 2013 at 11:04

Because they are, not because of.

Darn this racist smartphone.

Posted by: Steve 2 | June 26, 2013 at 11:12

Steve 2,

Your eloquence has been noted by the good people at Samizdata.

Customer service or what?

Posted by: David | June 26, 2013 at 15:11

Guardianistas shocked to discover rest of country doesn't think like them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100223531/guardian-robot-simply-cannot-understand-why-generation-y-arent-all-good-socialists-does-not-compute-does-not-compute/

Posted by: rjmadden | June 26, 2013 at 16:31

David, thanks for that, it made my day :-)

Posted by: Steve 2 | June 26, 2013 at 16:59

what would Caprice Hollins, a publicly funded race hustler, stand to gain from the *success* of children with brown skin?

She's paid for *not* getting results. Interesting business model.

Posted by: Another John | June 27, 2013 at 08:20

She’s paid for *not* getting results. Interesting business model.

Quite. Ms Hollins was ostensibly paid to investigate a supposedly “systemic and institutional” racism that no-one could actually point to before she was hired, and which, three years later – and hundreds of thousands of dollars later – still couldn’t be found. Despite extending her search way beyond her remit, and beyond mere facts and logic, Ms Hollins was finally obliged to admit she could find no evidence of a problem - no evidence at all. Naturally, this didn’t hamper Ms Hollins’ career. Nor did it modify her assumptions. Instead, she insisted that further “investigation” was needed - at taxpayers’ expense. Because, well, that mortgage won’t pay itself. And so, instead of encouraging all children to turn up on time and organise their thoughts, Ms Hollins decided what was needed was an awful lot of fretting about “white privilege” and “the dominant Eurocentric perspective.” Because, obviously, that’s exactly the kind of thing that will help kids with brown skin find decent jobs.

As noted here:

Just as Pinocchio went off to school with high hopes, only to be waylaid by J. Worthington Foulfellow, minority students are met on the way to campus by hard-left radicals who claim to have the interests of the newcomers at heart but in reality prey on them to advance their own selfish interests. Of course, what black students need is the same solid traditional education that had raised Irish, Italians, and Jews to full equality. But that would not serve the campus radicals’ purpose. Disaffected radicals wanted to swell the ranks of the disaffected, not the ranks of the cheerfully upward mobile. Genuine progress for minority students would mean their joining and thus strengthening the mainstream of American society - the mainstream that campus radicals loathe.

And it’s a standard pattern.

Posted by: David | June 27, 2013 at 08:55

Old fart that I am, I saw the words "Netroots Nation" and thought immediately -- as you do -- of Ena Sharples having her hair dyed under her traditional headgear. Younger folk may have to look google this, but for those like me who endured the early days of Coronation Street you will easily understand where I am coming from.

Posted by: Watcher | June 27, 2013 at 14:04

That link rjmadden provided is priceless!

"And yet, and yet. Might the true views of Gen Y have been better summed up by 23-year-old Adele Adkins, whose response to the brief era of a 50% top rate of tax oozed the stuff of post-Thatcher individualism? Just to recap: "I'm mortified to have to pay 50%. I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I've got to give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire." Lovely."

Ahahahaha!

Posted by: JuliaM | June 28, 2013 at 06:00

Guardianistas shocked to discover rest of country doesn’t think like them.

Why, it’s almost a recurring theme. There must be dark forces at work. But I suppose if you’ve spent years pretending to have the views you think a person should pretend to have, it’s galling to discover that the people you’re pretending to care about really can’t be arsed to pretend along with you.

Posted by: David | June 28, 2013 at 07:11

I suppose if you've spent years pretending to have the views you think a person should pretend to have, it's galling to discover that the people you're pretending to care about really can't be arsed to pretend along with you.

The impudence! It's "heart-breaking"!

Posted by: rjmadden | June 28, 2013 at 08:18

The impudence! It’s “heart-breaking”!

Yes, when the proletariat dare to disagree with The Guardian Massive™ - say, on matters of taxation, autonomy and an overbearing state - it’s saddening and baffling.

Curse that false consciousness.

[ Added: ]

This seems somehow apposite. The chronically loss-making Guardian (sales 200,000) is lecturing the Sun (sales 2.4 million) on being “relevant” to its readers.

Posted by: David | June 28, 2013 at 08:29

Two more.

Another Marxoid shrink claims to know how “we” feel, says choice is bad for “us”.

And a website that ‘outs’ ex-vegans in creepy stalker fashion. Then denounces them, obviously.

Posted by: David | June 28, 2013 at 13:12

I'm guessing Renata Salecl believes Soviet bread lines were the most beautiful thing she'd ever seen.

Posted by: Spiny Norman | June 28, 2013 at 14:52

Read a couple of the ex-vegan "outings" for Florida. One young lady simply blogged that she was craving eggs. No admission to falling off the wagon, just admitting temptation. Another was a raw food vegan who started consuming raw dairy. Ooh, the outrage!

Posted by: WTP | June 28, 2013 at 15:25

Also, this:

If the project is successful, Los Angeles families can expect more use of students to push government-preferred messaging. “Teens are part of a ‘pilot’ program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes,” said Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, in an email. “Teens will be educating adults.”

Get them while they’re soft and yielding. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: David | June 28, 2013 at 16:16

Talking of 'Guardianista' hubris, Daivd, you might have seen this in the 'Indie':

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/theyll-want-to-bring-back-hanging-next-what-rightwing-lunacy-is-there-inside-the-conservative-rebels-alternative-queens-speech-8672008.html

Apparently if you think that non-payment of the licence fee should be decriminalised, you're even more of a fascist than someone who argues for the reintroduction of national service.

Posted by: sackcloth and ashes | June 28, 2013 at 16:27

David,

Totally off topic, but your readers may appreciate this short piece by the always excellent Douglas Murray - The comments contain some real gems too - lot's of reasons to be, if not cheerful, at least hopeful.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/06/a-gross-double-standard-over-hate-speech/

Posted by: Steve | June 28, 2013 at 18:28

Another two.

This chap parses the dishonesty of Renata Salecl’s “tyranny of choice,” above. It’s a task that scarcely needs doing – anyone who swoons over Lacan should be pelted with soft fruit - but still.

And then of course there’s this.

Brace yourself for cheerful cartoon genitalia. And the phrase “Dora the clitoral explorer.” Oh, and yes, there’s an app for it. As Ace wrote yesterday, “Hallelujah! And they said it couldn’t happen! There’s a ridiculous cultural-left woman-infantilising boondoggle going on somewhere and we’re not paying for it!”

Posted by: David | June 29, 2013 at 07:23