Friday, March 22, 2013

What can - and can't - be discussed at the "University"

The term "University" refers to the universe of knowledge, all of which is suitable for Intellectual study.  In theory.

As we all know: in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice, this is not true.  And so to the "universe" of knowledge considered suitable to study at the Academy.

Suitable knowledge:
I was minding my own business at work this afternoon when I get a call  from the producer to Sean Hannity’s radio show asking if I’d come on to talk about Beyonce’s use of the word “bitch” in her newest song and the feminist dialogue around reclaiming this word, Snap Chat and use among teens to spread sexually explicit images of their peers without consent, and other sexuality related things in the news.


He goes on about how this type of indoctrination also happened at Yale and a “sexologist” (said with belittlement and sarcasm) came to teach about bestiality and incest. “Hey, what’s a “sexologist” anyway??”

So I explained. And I explained the Sex: Am I Normal” workshop he was referencing at Yale, even though it’s old news and I’ve already explained it a million times. I explained it’s about normal vs normative, and creating a safe space, and such but he kept interrupting me with “But what do YOU think about bestiality???” I again stated the program is not about my opinion, or a space for me to judge other people’s sexual behaviors, it’s about recognizing that sexual diversity exists for better or worse, but how  can you explain reason and logic to a person who has to bend the truth to get you to talk to them, and then when you talk to them belligerently repeats “Oh, c’mon, you’re a sexologist, you must have an opinion on bestiality so what is it!?” I took one last ditch effort to explain this is not what I came on to talk about and then thought, fuck it, and hung up.
I listened to this, driving back from the dog park.  Hannity was no more aggressive in his questioning than, say, a mainstream media reporter questioning a Catholic Bishop on abortion.  She was evasive, her sense of Entitled Princess firmly on display.  And she did hang up on him.  I guess she's never had to defend her positions before.  It was a pretty astonishing performance, actually, and one that seems entirely in line with the sense at the Academy of what's proper.  No doubt she will now be a hero in the Ivy Covered Halls.

Unsuitable knowledge:
As a public service, here's something that you should read if you really want to make a liberal's head explode like the fembots in Austin Powers. Or understand why the world's economy is the way it is. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by David Landes. The title is intentionally taken from Adam Smith, but Landes focuses less on describing economics per se, and more on the constraints that a society puts on their economy.

It traces the history of economic development over the last 1000 years, and asks some very politically incorrect questions:
  • Why did China, the world's richest and most powerful country in 1000 AD not only lose her lead, but lose it so badly that it was dismembered by the European (and later resurgent Japanese) powers?
  • Why did India, fabulously wealthy and populous, not conquor the west, rather than vice-versa?
  • Why did England, an undeveloped backwater as late as 1500 AD, ultimately lead the Industrial Revolution and become the world's most powerful country?
  • What explains the vast differences in economic development between the USA and Canada, and other New World countries? After all, in 1700, Mexico's GDP per capita was $450, not far short of the colonies' $490 (1985 dollars). In 1989, Mexico's GDP per capita was $3,500, vs. $18,300 for the USA.
These questions all tread on the line separating Approved™ racial groups from Western Aggressors™ and so cannot even be broached.  It's a part of the "universe" of knowledge that is forbidden on campus today, sort of like Darwin in the schools a century ago.  The subject cannot be discussed; moreover, it cannot even be thought about.  And so what I find interesting is the enfeeblement of Progressive thought over the last generation or two.  It used to be a robust intellectual school, able to win converts by the force of its logic:
What it ironic is that one of the giants of progressive intellectualism showed them the error of their ways, more than half a century ago.  John Kenneth Galbraith was very possibly the last of the first rate progressive intellectuals.  His 1958 The Affluent Society is something that somehow I'd missed reading.  Dad told me to take whichever of his books I'd like, and I grabbed that one for the plane ride home.

Reading it, it's easy to see why it was so hugely influential.  It is clear, it is logically consistent, it progresses step by logical step towards its conclusion.  Much of it has turned out to be wrong in the last 50-odd years, but none of it is the weak beer offered up by today's progressives.

It's quite a good read, and is well worth your while.  His discussion of Marx is outstanding; not so much in explaining the nuts and bolts of the economic theory (although it's perfectly adequate), but in laying out just why it was that Marx was instantly so influential.
Can you possibly imagine a Galbraith hanging up on a Sean Hannity?  Galbraith wouldn't have hung up,  he would have eviscerated him.

What is convincing proof of the bias in the Academy is precisely the same as what convinces that the Media are biased.  It's not what's talked about, it's what cannot be talked about.  We have lost the great questions and replaced them with piffle.  What a sad, pathetic state that the Progressive Intellectuals have in the space of a generation gone from John Kenneth Galbraith to Jill McDevitt.


Glen Filthie said...

I won't disagree that the intellectual capital of the political left has question is WHY?

Goober said...

Glen - because back in the day, they were discussing theory and had some very convincing things to say.

Things have changed since then. There is no "theory" anymore because all of their great ideas have been tried, and they've failed miserably in every case.

In present day, they are discussing actual practice, and their ideology, wherever it has been tried throughout the world, has failed.

So what do they have left but weak beer? The only thing that they have is "let's try it again, only not so extreme this time" and "it will work if only we put the right people in charge now!"

Any other argument that they make is simply going to fall flat because it has been proven wrong at this point. That's why they won't debate. That's why they try to pass off their ideas as "accepted practice" and dismiss anyone that doesn't fall into lock-step with them as fringe loonies (like Sean Hannity). Their only tact now is to act like what they are asking for is normal, that everyone that doesn't agree is hateful and ugly and racist, and hope that future generations eventually fall for their hogwash.

Worst of it is that it is actually working.

Goober said...

And to Borepatch - Gilreath couldn't even eviscerate Hannity anymore, much less anyone else, because no matter how eloquently he argued his points, he was still wrong. That has been proven now. If he is an intelligent man, he would have changed his opinions by now (assuming he is still alive) and if not, then he would be arguing the same weak beer BS the others are arguing because it is all they have left.

As for what's her face's argument, the thing about this "normal vs. normative" debate is that they fight for a non-judgmental forum in which they discuss these things in neutral terms, while forgetting that some sexual proclivities include harming unwilling parties (ie, rape fetishes, paedophilia, beastiality, etc) and so are not on equal terms with sexual "non-normatives" where all parties consent and no one gets hurt.

They want to talk about all sexual behavior in a non-judgemental way, and forget that some sexual behavior is absolutely abhorrent and should be judged, instantly, because someone is getting hurt by it.

So, in short, Ms. Whatever your name is, when we're talking about animal abuse, it IS about your opinion, and it is no longer a neutral subject, because someone is doing harm.

I liken this to a theoretical panel discussing all human behavior in non-judgemental terms, and getting upset when some member condemns murder or assault, simply because it is contrary to their ideas of "normal vs. normative" behavior, when in actuality, these things are simply wrong, no matter how you parse them.

No amount of progressive BS double-speak can change that. No matter how hard they try to change the laws of the universe, and argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong, they fail. And it is really getting to them; and they are getting desperate.

kx59 said...

A Yale or Harvard degree is a black flag when I'm evaluating resume's. We've had a few of them work for us over the years. They have a very inflated sense of themselves.
As employees and contributing team members they tend to suck.