LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Yo Libbocrats, Own It

Beginning during the late 1960's it became dangerous in the United States to maintain that IQ differences are important, largely genetic, and that average IQ's differences between the races.

That is unfortunate. From the McCarthy era to the late 1960's it was dangerous in the United States to advocate socialism, criticize capitalism, and to say anything nice about any Communist government. That was also unfortunate.

I am in favor of unlimited political debate. I believe that there should be no legal, economic, or social sanctions against expressing opinions and propagating facts.
 
The_Trouvere said:
I am in favor of unlimited political debate. I believe that there should be no legal, economic, or social sanctions against expressing opinions and propagating facts.
Click to expand...

And I want a unicorn. There are no legal sanctions for expressing your opinion or propogating facts. There are economic sanctions to not being invited to Jimmy's Wedding so good luck with that and the same with social.
 
“PC” is another right-wing lie: Missouri proves reactionary forces really are waging war against college kids

Forget "political correctness": The truth is young people are really suffering from conservative culture wars

Amanda Marcotte

It’s been trendy in the past few months for pundits to raise the alarm about the supposedly out-of-control culture of “political correctness” on campuses. Audiences are expected to be appalled at students asking for “trigger warnings” before viewing violent material in class or to tsk at young people for not enjoying the comedy stylings of Dennis Miller, which is surely because they are too “P.C.” and not because he’s not funny. We’re meant to see this as a one-sided war of overwrought lefty bullies attacking innocent victims, be it their elders or even peers who aren’t “social justice warriors.”

No doubt there are some instances where young people, puffed up on self-righteousness and still sloppy about politics, go way too far with the P.C.-policing. But Monday’s resignation of Tim Wolfe as the president of the University of Missouri system in the wake of a wave of racial ugliness on campus should be a reminder that while a few loudmouthed lefties who overplay their hands may be annoying, young people—particularly young women and people of color—are less victimizers than victimized. All this chatter about “trigger warnings” and the supposedly over-coddled young has served to cover up the real story: Young people are under assault from reactionary forces and most of their grievances are not about imagined slights, but about very serious problems they are facing, on and off campus.

As this timeline from the Maneater, the student newspaper at the University of Missouri shows, the revolt against Wolfe didn’t come out of nowhere. The accusations that Wolfe was indifferent to a handful of racist incidents on campus are only the tip of the iceberg. It appears that, for months now, the campus has been the staging ground for all manner of conservative attacks on the wellbeing of young people not just on campus, but across the state.

Over the summer, the school tried to take away health insurance subsidies for graduate students, blaming Obamacare. That didn’t last long, but it certainly put students on notice that their basic access to health care was under threat by conservative forces. Then the university got caught up in the state’s heightened anti-choice politics, after state legislators strong-armed the school into forcing a doctor who worked at the school to quit providing abortions at a local Planned Parenthood. The school also canceled contracts with Planned Parenthood that allowed medical and nursing students to gain hours there, in response to the hoax videos that came out over the summer falsely accusing Planned Parenthood of selling body parts. They eventually came to their senses and renewed the contracts, but, as with the graduate student health program, the message was sent: The school was listening to and willing to interfere with the health care and educational access the students had, to pander to the whims of a bunch of delusional culture warriors.

While all this is happening, black students on campus are reporting a series of racist incidents. Campus protests were invigorated by the protests against police brutality in nearby Ferguson, but it also appears that all this tumult is invigorating racists, too, who are getting increasingly confrontational and provocative. While many news reports suggest that the main complaint against Wolfe was that he was insufficiently responsive to student concerns over this, it was actually much worse: Students report that a car driving Wolfe actually revved up the engine in the face of students who were blocking him in an anti-racism protest, and that one student was bumped by the car. It was likely unintentional, but still the result of treating the very real concerns of students at the center of this culture war whirlwind as if they are nothing but an annoyance.

Any one of these incidents, in isolation, doesn’t seem like a big deal, but taken together, it becomes easier to see why so many students feel under attack. Nor is this just about the University of Missouri. Young people in general have very real reasons to feel under attack in this country, and the shit show at Missouri is just a boiling over of pressures being felt from coast to coast by young people.

The culture war is usually discussed in this country in terms of religion, gender, or race, but it’s very rarely discussed in terms of age. But young people are definitely feeling the pain. Police violence is disproportionately dished out on young people of color. The attacks on Planned Parenthood are mostly about depriving teens and women in their early twenties access to contraception and STI services—services that women a little older usually can get through other means. Sexual assault on campus is endemic, but Republicans have responded by trying to make it harder for young women to get protection from their assailants.

Even the war over Obamacare has a generational aspect to it. Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 are the most likely to be uninsured and therefore have the most to gain under the Medicaid expansion and federal subsidies available through Obamacare. Surprise surprise, these happen to be the aspects of the law getting attacked the most by conservatives. That, and contraception coverage, which again is needed the most by young women who are having sex but may struggle to pay full price for their preferred contraception methods.

Colleges are becoming a staging ground for this hostility towards young people, where students have to face soaring tuition rates and unmanageable levels of student debt, with elders too busy making fun of “trigger warnings” to worry about the economic destruction being dished out to young adults. Wolfe himself was hired not from the world of academia but from the business world, brought on for his skills at cutting costs more than his commitment to quality education. His hire was a demonstration that the state of Missouri prioritizes slashing education budgets to fund tax cuts over investing in young people’s futures.

So yes, young people sometimes do silly or nonsensical things in the name of social justice. But if young people in this country feel that they are under attack from reactionary forces, it’s because they are. They struggle to get health care, they pay too much for education, they face dismal job prospects in the real world and far too many of them, particularly young people of color, have to live in fear of police violence. If their reactions are sometimes imperfect, their heightened emotions in this environment are entirely understandable. As Wolfe’s resignation shows, the culture wars on campus are about something much deeper than a few scuffles over Halloween costumes or trigger warnings. While it’s always fun to make fun of overwrought student leftists who go too far, it’s time to start paying some real attention to the serious problems that young people are really facing, in Missouri and in the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
 
Quit with the “PC” hysteria: College kids are not trying to steal your freedom of speech

Well, that didn't take long: The Missouri protests kick off another round of hysteria over "political correctness"

Amanda Marcotte

Jonathan Chait, mighty warrior against the exaggerated threat of “political correctness”, is at it again, this time quivering in fear at the sight of the University of Missouri protesters. In his piece on the protests in Columbia, Chait briefly admits that the protesters have legitimate grievances before moving on to his real concern: The grave threat these protesters present to freedom itself because they won’t talk to reporters.

How can a bunch of people who are actively using their freedom of speech be such a threat to freedom that Chait feels the noose of censorship tightening around his neck? The protesters yelled at and physically blocked a photographer and other reporters from entering their protest encampment. At one point, a professor named Melissa Click got involved, asking students to use their bodies to block a photographer.

The whole escapade was unpleasant and ill-advised. Pissing off reporters is bad form for protesters. Click in particular is setting a bad example for her students.

But it’s time for those who were annoyed by this to calm the hell down. The whole incident is hardly some kind of shutdown of free speech. No writer is actually being barred from expressing an opinion about the protests. Freedom of speech also includes the protesters’ freedom not to speak—to reporters or anyone. Considering how many youth-hostile writers like Chait are licking their lips, eager to write yet another story on you the youth of today are all terrible compared to their supposedly noble elders, you can sort of see why young people don’t want to talk to reporters.

Chait, who has repeatedly written with great scorn about the rhetorical excesses of the college crowd, doesn’t hold back from hair-curling hyperbole of his own. This unwillingness to talk to reporters is evidence, he argues, of the cancer that is “political correctness”, which “denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender” and that seeks to “impose its political hegemony upon others” and is “incompatible with liberalism”.

“It’s that the ideology itself prioritizes class justice over individual rights and makes no allowance for legitimate disagreement,” he warns, in case you aren’t pissing your pants in fear enough. Indeed, students who commit the ill-defined (but rest assured, Chait will tell you what it is when he sees it) sin of political correctness express “incredulity at the idea of political democracy”.

“The reason every Marxist government in the history of the world turned massively repressive is not because they all had the misfortune of being hijacked by murderous thugs,” Chait intones darkly. Quick, someone get Ben Carson in here with his Nazi metaphors, to complete the lurid and frightening picture.

That’s the power of the term “political correctness”. It allows people like Chait to argue that students who are organizing protests, standing up to authority figures they disagree with, and demanding a voice in the governance of their own universities are somehow anti-democracy and anti-free speech. It’s a great weapon for those who want to tell kids to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told that it’s all in the name of “freedom”. Nice trick, there.

Do young people, drunk on their first engagement in politics, some times express themselves in ways that are hyperbolic and bullying? Absolutely, though you’d think a self-appointed critic of hyper-sensitivity like Chait could take the heat. But few young people have Chait’s talent for hyperbole in the face of political disagreement. Most of them will probably grow out of it, and maybe even be a bit embarrassed at how they took things too far in their college years. But Chait’s a grown man in his 40s. What’s his excuse?

It’s easy to sit on your perch, lecturing the youth today about how they are supposedly failing, and getting that jolt of unearned superiority for your supposedly noble ways. Harder, but more rewarding, is to dig in and ask the hard questions about how things have gotten so bad to inspire these protests.

What kind of pressures are young people under? Why do they feel so put upon? There are answers to these questions. Fair warning: Those answers might inspire sympathy for young people. It’s not as fun as lecturing kids about how they are ungrateful brats, but the real story here is how young people today are living in stressful, often unmanageable situations. No wonder some of them don’t act perfectly all the time. Under that level of pressure, few of us could.
Click to expand...
 
Missouri activists vs. the press is still a story about race: This is what happens when black students can’t trust the media

It's more complex than casting journalists as victims of unreasonable campus protesters

Paula Young Lee

Following the stunning resignations of president Tim Wolfe and chancellor R. Bowen Loftin in the wake of Black student activism at the University of Missouri-Columbia, a secondary news story is developing at the school. It is a meta-narrative about the way news gets made, who controls the telling, and how stories get framed. It is a bit about the First Amendment–and perhaps academic freedom too, insofar as activist faculty are involved. But it mostly is a story about distrust. About Black distrust of the White gaze, and an utter lack of faith in the capacity of a White press to tell Black stories with honesty.

The centerpiece of this new story at Missouri is a student of photojournalism, Tim Tai, 20. On assignment from ESPN to photograph historic events on campus, he turned his camera on an encampment that protesters had pitched on the university quad. For about a week, protesters had been camping out there to “protest and strategize,” anonymous sources tell me. “But, until yesterday, the media had rarely showed up to interview the students.”

All that changed with remarkable speed. After ignoring this story for months, hundreds of members of the press were suddenly everywhere on campus. “As the the president’s resignation announcement was unfolding,” my sources relate, “the protesters decided to convene in their camp to discuss their strategy. But the journalists, of course, wanted to get an exclusive of the students’ reactions to the president’s resignation. As a consequence, the protesters–with the collaboration of other students, locals, and even faculty–decided to momentarily block the journalists’ access to the camp. In the heat of the moment, there may have been some pushback but, after the protesters convened, they invited the public, including the media, to a big party.”

But it is Tai’s confrontation with protesters that is making the news. And this focus itself requires examination. For by focusing on a young Asian man–a member of the so-called “model minority” on a big assignment–going head to head with Black protesters living in a “makeshift tent city,” the coverage is already playing off racist stereotypes. But who is filming the confrontation? From whose perspective are these events being recorded? The videographer is a young journalist named Mark Schierbecker. Ostensibly viewed through a “neutral” mechanical eye recording things-as-they-occur, the limits of the camera’s frame are nonetheless shaping what we see in a very particular way. It is framing it through the reflexive lens of whiteness.

As a reporter for KBIA (Mid-Missouri pubic radio) commented ruefully: “The demonstrator telling the photographer to back up is a black man. Other demonstrators nearby are white, black, men, women. The photographer appears to be Asian, though I didn’t ask anyone how they identified. But, like me, most of the reporters there were white men.” And this white maleness matters, Bram Sable-Smith concluded. For there is no way to avoid talking about race — “not in a story about a demonstration against systematic oppression.”

And yet hardly anyone is talking about race–specifically, the nearly monolithic whiteness of the media descending on the protesters’ encampment. But you wouldn’t know that from watching that video. Instead, it’s focused on an Asian photographer trying doggedly to take photos by invoking his First Amendment rights to be in a public space, as Black student protesters and White women do their best to get rid of him. Tai is now doing his best to turn the spotlight back where it belongs: on the systemic problems on the Missouri campus that have led to historic events still unfolding. “I’m a little perturbed at being part of the story,” he tweeted. “So maybe let’s focus some more reporting on systemic racism in higher ed institutions.”

This “unbearable whiteness of liberal media” is precisely why the Black student protesters asked journalists to please “respect” them as well as their space by leaving them alone, at least long enough to collect their thoughts. When Sable-Smith repeatedly asked for a statement, the students replied, again and again, joyfully: “To God be the Glory.” He did not understand that response.

Journalist Tracie Powell runs the website All Digitocracy.org, which works to support journalists of color while raising awareness of structural racism in the media. Powell is concerned about the treatment of Tai, the student photographer, but her gut instinct was that the refusal of the protesters to admit the press was, more accurately, their refusal to feed the biases of White journalism. “For me, the overwhelming impression was that they didn’t trust the White reporters suddenly trying to cover the story.” In conversation with me, she noted that these reporters had already shown themselves to be ranging from indifferent to outright hostile to the concerns outlined by Black students on campus, and “parachute journalism”–jumping in to a big story and then leaving–would give activists no reason to trust them. Her instincts are confirmed from various tweets from student protesters on campus, including one from #ConcernedStudent1950: “It’s typically white media who don’t understand the importance of respecting black spaces.”

It’s not that Tai didn’t find his First Amendment rights being challenged. He did. Protesters also put signs declaring “No Media/ Safe Space” zones, and refused to speak to the press. But these are not the nut of the story. The story is about the way local television news and other media outlets questioned and undermined the protesters’ reactions by turning the press itself into the victim. As one of my sources observed: “This is just a poor and dishonest attempt of portraying what was actually a huge victory in the name of justice. Unfortunately, this has been a frequently used tactic to discredit the efforts of those fighting against racism and other forms of oppression.”

Meanwhile, a new sign has appeared on campus, identifying itself as being from #ConcernedStudent1950: “Media has a 1st Amendment right to occupy campsite, 2) the media is important to tell our story and experiences at Mizzou to the world. 3) Let’s welcome and thank them.”
Click to expand...
 
The ivory tower doesn’t exist: Mizzou’s boycott victory can’t be dismissed as just another “campus p.c. culture” controversy

The protest that pushed U. of Missouri's president into quitting is bigger than microaggressions and safe spaces

Paula Young Lee

This past weekend at the University of Missouri-Columbia, the black team members of the football team announced a boycott, declaring they would not participate in any football-related activities until the president of their university resigned. At Yale University in New Haven, angry students have been demanding that two administrators resign over “offensive” recommendations they made regarding Halloween costumes. Yale is a private university routinely listed as one of the top 10 institutions of higher education in the U.S., whereas the University of Missouri-Columbia is a public school without the elitist status of the Ivy League. On the face of it, these institutions could not be more different, yet they stand on opposite ends of a lengthy fault line threatening to bring about the collapse of a cherished illusion–the illusion that the life of the mind somehow exists independently of the race, gender and economic class of the bodies carting the brains around.

For a while now, critics have been pointing out the political perversion of institutions of higher education to serve economic ends. It is important to stipulate that the “ivory tower” was always a fiction, insofar as universities have never been above the fray but have always been shaped by social and political forces. In its Utopian incarnation, the university is a universe in microcosm, representing all things at all times as part of an encyclopedic objective. Universe+city = university. In practice, the university was always less cosmos than city, but lately–for the past century or so–it has begun to resemble a carefully curated gated community. Inside its walls, an ideal community of scholars and students hold soft hands, united in their vision of a perfectible future. Both fantasist and nostalgic, that vision of the university promotes expectations of a “safe space” where the ideational realm prevails, and the ordinary violence of reality is too raw to admit, both literally and figuratively.

With this latest student protest in Missouri, that vision of the university has been fully exposed as a fiction. Revealed as a political instrument invested in controlling access to elite services and positions, the university’s task is to reproduce dominant sociocultural structures commonly understood, however vaguely, as the operative hierarchies of “power.” More accurately, however, the concurrent example of the protest at Yale illustrates that “the university” is fracturing into multiple nodes where no single cultural rubric prevails, and that institutional vulnerability is itself making it possible for student protests to resonate as parables of the nation’s divisive, incoherent politics.

In conversation with me via phone, Mizzou faculty member Daniel Domingues emphasized the breadth and depth of the crisis at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He was one of the dozens of faculty signatories of a statement of support for “our students engaged in bringing awareness to institutionalized racism and its intersected forms of oppression” at this public university. The campus was not in turmoil because of isolated incidents of micoagression where students of color were made to feel like intruders, belittled and ostracized simply for not being white. It started last year when the administration summarily yanked healthcare from the university’s graduate students, and had refused to hear their concerns.

As student protests intensified, so too do did the pushback, which included repeated and grotesque incidents of racism on campus, such as cotton balls being tossed around the Black Culture Center on campus, and the president of the UM student association being called various racial slurs. In this larger context, it becomes clear that the most recent, outrageously offensive acts such as swastikas being smeared in feces on the bathrooms of student halls, were intended to intimidate students from speaking out against systemic issues that affected all students of color, but were most consistently being expressed as anti-blackness.

The walkout planned for Monday and Tuesday would have had the participation of hundreds of faculty and grad students, representing a merging of several movements on campus, including the anti-racist protests as well as coordinated efforts by the graduate student forum. On Nov. 2, black graduate student Jonathan Butler had begun a hunger strike, which would “end either in his death or in the removal of [Tim] Wolfe from office.” By Nov. 6, numerous academic departments had released statements declaring their support of Butler. But it took a statement of solidarity by the most powerful members of the student body–the football players–to finally tip things over the edge, to the point where the scope of the problem spilled out beyond campus walls and became a topic worthy of national attention.

As William C. Rhoden wrote for the New York Times, the solidarity shown by the football players of the Missouri team for other black students on campus was remarkable precisely because they were “lending their support to a fight that, on its face, did not include them,” at least not on the level of sports. The statement issued by the black football players declared resoundingly: “The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere….WE ARE UNITED!!!!” The next day, the coach as well as the rest of the football team announced their solidarity with their teammates. The Missouri football team had been scheduled to play a game this Saturday. Canceling the game could have “cost the school millions.”

At 10 a.m. Monday, following an emergency meeting of the Board of Curators, the president of the University of Missouri-Columbia resigned.

Pessimistically, it is possible to see Tim Wolfe’s resignation as confirmation that the public university has capitulated to a utilitarian model that chiefly exists to manage income-generating resources. In this light, it makes sense to accommodate those resources that generate the most institutional revenues, which means keeping the football players happy. Not even the president of the university supersedes the political mandate, coming from the state level, to generate revenues and keep constituents cheering for their team.

Optimistically, though, the turmoil on the UM campus offers a potential lesson in the power of solidarity among people of color that, in this localized example, started with the students and swiftly included large swaths of the faculty as well as all the members of the football team, including the white players and the coach. In recognizing the wrongness of racism and “joining together to fight an evil,” as Domingues said, hundreds of individuals on campus were willing to stick out their necks and risk their professional futures in order to bring about institutional change at the structural level. In advance of Wolfe’s resignation, Domingues said hopefully: “All in all, I think this has been a very positive movement because it has brought awareness, it has helped build a community aware of the need for inclusiveness. We are moving in a positive direction.”
Click to expand...
 
It is interesting that the one issue that caused the resignation was the Footballers rebelling. As long as it was just 'students' protesting the hostile environment, nothings was happening, but when the loss of revenue and prestige was added, the establishment shifted.

Football revenue trumps wide spread chaos!
 
I'm a retired psychologist.

In my humble opinion high IQs are as bad as high weight, high blood pressure, and being too tall. If high IQs mattered we'd all have high IQs. With 130 IQ youre good to go for most purposes. Mozart and Paris Hilton prolly have IQs tween 130-145. Higher IQs run Wall Street and Washington and fuck everything up.
 
NOIRTRASH said:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html

Liberals are now totalitarian tyrants
Click to expand...

You see liberal hippies can throw bricks!

Not news. Opinion editorials. Written by right wing nutbars. Hardly unbiased.

How dare the young and educated of your country speak out. How dare they express themselves. How dare they use their collective voices to influence school politics. Same fucking lefty hippies who caused the US to shamefully run from Vietnam with it's tail between it's legs. Ohio State was to good for them! Just think of the turmoil caused by young educated people. Down with higher learning. Literacy and education are highly over rated anyways.

The old and the stupid should only be allowed a voice opinions. Not these educated involved youth.

The death throes of righty nutbars in the face of inevitability. Love it!

More bricks please! Bigger ones too with sharp edges. Muhahahahaaa!
 
NOIRTRASH said:
I'm a retired psychologist.

In my humble opinion high IQs are as bad as high weight, high blood pressure, and being too tall.
Click to expand...

1. No you're not. Don't lie on the internet that's just pathetic.

2. If you really were a psychologist -and this is how I know you're not- you know IQs are bullshit. Just ask any real psychologist and they'll tell you an IQ score doesn't really mean anything.

3. Liberals are for free speech.

Three strikes and you're out dude. Kind of pathetic.
 
Hard_Rom said:
You see liberal hippies can throw bricks!

Not news. Opinion editorials. Written by right wing nutbars. Hardly unbiased.

How dare the young and educated of your country speak out. How dare they express themselves. How dare they use their collective voices to influence school politics. Same fucking lefty hippies who caused the US to shamefully run from Vietnam with it's tail between it's legs. Ohio State was to good for them! Just think of the turmoil caused by young educated people. Down with higher learning. Literacy and education are highly over rated anyways.

The old and the stupid should only be allowed a voice opinions. Not these educated involved youth.

The death throes of righty nutbars in the face of inevitability. Love it!

More bricks please! Bigger ones too with sharp edges. Muhahahahaaa!
Click to expand...

They did the same in 1968 and went away. They took over colleges and pranced about, and after Nixon killed 4 of them at Kent State they stopped. 2016 wont be much fun for them when Hillary's ass is kicked to the curb.
 
BTW, actually, as it happens, I am the rightful Emperor of China. My regnal name is Dong Hang Lo. Of the Wang Dynasty. When the monarchists inevitably and soon come to power, then, by Our Vermilion Rescript, the new national anthem of the most ancient and illustrious Middle Kingdom shall be "Mr. Wong Has the Biggest Tong in Chinatown." Let all men tremble, respect this, and obey without negligence.
 
NOIRTRASH said:
They did the same in 1968 and went away. They took over colleges and pranced about, and after Nixon killed 4 of them at Kent State they stopped. 2016 wont be much fun for them when Hillary's ass is kicked to the curb.
Click to expand...

What, is President Trump going to call out the Guard to put down anti-racism protests in Mizzou?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dolf
Are you prepared?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
1K
glamorilla
glamorilla
P
Orwell: Notes on Nationalism
Replies
5
Views
206
Politruk
P
P
Will poetry and poets ever again be important?
2
Replies
35
Views
894
Politruk
P
P
The Most Important Judge in America
Replies
24
Views
530
Politruk
P
A
Will they come on like a wrecking ball?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
840
AceDesSpades
A
Back
Top