Your Guide to the Idiom of Mass Delusion
Stereotype, n. euspeak,
1. Unwelcome expectation resulting from past experience.
2. Gauche but true.
Obviously once someone like Mr Cowen declares the "best measure" of society's justice how it treats a given group he's created a powerful entity--even if their historical grievance is just. And in the rush to establish that measure of justice Cowen et al--to the extent they are successful and WWT is a stunning success thus far--slam the door on any further inquiry in to the nature of the identity. Just for me to suggest here that we don't fully understand is heresy. Of course McCloskey et al are going to explain and the decent people await, hushed.It brings to mind something I've been thinking about lately: how understanding actually depends a great deal on what we now identify as bias, as racism, or sexism, and on. Any honest attempt to understand the world has to include what is now deemed bigoted: the bias that comes from having one's own confident identity against which to measure the world. Anything else is fraudulent. We've lost something to the new post-Christian order assigning the highest value to what is sometimes questionably called "tolerance".
So, ironically, the true measure of an enlightened society is now it's polite lack of curiosity, doubt, skepticism, really; isn't it time we updated that term?
What's truly stupid about it all is that there's never been a better time for gender-confused kids (are we even allowed to speak in such terms any more?) regarding tolerance. At least in white society. Until you've all corrected the disgrace that is their [whites'] majority status, the LGBT are safe.
But nobody's giving any more thought to the possibility we're encouraging what we would--without WWT--otherwise classify as mental illness sometimes culminating in self-mutilation. If we're going to cite all the presumptive teen suicides that happen due to "intolerance", taking advocates entirely at their word, it is then perfectly legitimate to consider, just for starters, the cases of resentful post-ops who are unhappy. What is the net in misery or happiness? Do you really trust McCloskey to have an unbiased opinion, one not moderated by personal resentment, ambition and, yes, prejudice? The real problem with the whole concept of marginalized identity groups is only they get to define themselves. I ask the liberal: of the various critiques of, say, whiteness, masculinity, class, religion, etc, do they not increase our understanding of these things? Why does the perception of victim-hood change that? Why do you ignore the potential for abuse in this reality you create?
But is McCloskey's aggressive advocacy going to result in a far greater net misery? Is McCloskey, in her zeal and ambition, creating an identity group which she can lead, with disregard for the individual members of that group? If our greatest measure is how "well" we treat this presumed class of people who we are not allowed to identify; who have a unique proprietary right to their "identity" (but you know, it isn't really the aggregate voice of all them, but McCloskey and the few other best and most ambitious who define it, with the blunt thug tactics they deployed against Bailey and with the kitsch that is all the rest of WWT solidarity). [bad editing left in here]
This is not tolerance. This is power.
Life is so much more fun and interesting once you give up the ghost of false morality.
Happy Fathers Day, everyone. (I know it sucks to spend the day with civilians…) And on that note you should know that Disney and Warner Bros are sorting out the rights to Father Of The Bride 3 with Charles Shyer to write and direct (Nancy Meyers passed) and Steve Martin to return. (What else does he have going?) The twist in this threequel is that Little Matty is now 29 and gay and getting married to a Navy SEAL’s son. Father of the bride George is "thunderstruck and speechless" and has problems with the whole gay thing. So wife Nina kicks him out of the house, according to the pitch which Disney loved. Shyer is writing it with Marc Klein, David Hoberman producing again. "It’s a timely idea," my source said. "I told Charles I just hope it goes forward before gay stops trending…"My question is, what are we in for once Gay stops trending?
Voters Saw Cantor as Out of Touch, but Not Because of His Jewish Faith, Analysts Say
As the lone Jewish Republican in Congress, representing a deeply conservative, overwhelmingly Christian district in Virginia while dreaming of becoming the first Jewish speaker of the House, Representatives Eric Cantor always had a delicate task.Not that Brat should be entirely above suspicion:
“He’s a public official in an overtly non-Jewish world,” said Rabbi Gary S. Creditor of Temple Beth El in Richmond, which Mr. Cantor attended as a boy. “He didn’t flaunt being a Jew, and he did not highlight it, but he did not deny it, either.”
Mr. Brat, a professor at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia, speaks often about a return to “Judeo-Christian values” and cites his “belief in God.” In an interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity after his surprise victory, he said he felt that “God acted through the people on my behalf.”Funny how it's the guy who talks about Judeo-Christian values is automatically suspected of being anti-Semitic, but I get it.
Mr. Cantor’s district was redrawn in 2010 to make it tilt even more to the right — a factor that some analysts say may have in the end helped Mr. Brat. Roughly one-quarter of 1 percent of the district’s population is Jewish, according to the Berman Jewish Databank, a project of the Jewish Federations of North America.Which is vastly different from the, say, one or two percent Jews likely represented in his previous boundaries. The proportion of the Jewish vote hasn't been putting him over the top since he first ran in 2000. And as Stolberg notes, he's benefited from the pro-Israel sentiment of his conservative Christian constituents for a long time, while recently--if this article is to be believed--alienating Jewish supporters for not getting Amnesty passed:
In the House, Mr. Cantor has been a steadfast supporter of Israel, an issue important to Jews and Christian conservatives alike. But Jews in the Richmond area appear divided on him. Jewish Democrats are angry because he has stood in the way of a comprehensive immigration overhaul — an issue that, paradoxically, helped cost him his job, when Mr. Brat attacked him for supporting legal residency for young people brought here illegally.And that's as close as Stolberg gets to Cantor's Amnesty problem; it "helped cost him his job." Yeah, and I also understand a collision with an iceberg factored into the sinking of the Titanic.
Data from the DDB Life Style Survey indicates that trust began to increase throughout the country after World War II, and rose steadily through the 1960s. According to the data, trust peaked in 1967–1968, when roughly 56% of survey respondents agreed that “most people can be trusted.” From there, trust began to decline, and the trend has continued ever since.Gee, I don't know, did anything happen, say around 1965, that might have contributed to this trend? Then there's this:
Robert Putnam attributed it to the influences of television, the Internet, and other, socially isolating inventions, though not everyone has agreed with him. Dietland Stolle and Laura Nishikawa say that the media has influenced some parents to instill distrust in their children, despite how the parents themselves may have felt about trust. As with the other factors in this analysis, it is safe to assume that many influences converged on this relationship.No mention at all of Putnam's recent findings about the predictable erosion of trust in a multicultural society. I mean, that surely qualifies as a candidate for one of "many influences", no? Who ya gonna trust?
A new secessionist movement, anchored in the South, provides yet another reminder that “separate” still means “unequal” when it comes to the racial dynamics of the nation’s public schools.
The small middle-class town of Gardendale, Alabama, outside Birmingham, voted on November 12 to secede from the Jefferson County school district and then to raise taxes on themselves to finance the solo venture. Then, in March, Gardendale’s 14,000 residents finally got their own Board of Education. Soon after his appointment, one new board member, Clayton “Dick” Lee III, a banker and father of two, said he aspires to build a “best in class” school system “which exceeds the capabilities of the system which we are exiting.”The Narrative was assailed when this Power Line post (found by way of American Renaissance) linked to the article, prompting an invasion of critical comments focusing on the real motive force behind white flight, black violence (writing that I'm struck: I don't think I've ever read a progressive polemic about white flight or segregation that so much as mentioned black violence, much less take account of this overwhelming reality). Power Line here points to some inspiringly excoriating comments (that were excised sometime after PL revealed them):
In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, an organized group of residents from an unincorporated, predominantly white, relatively affluent area with a strong tax base are trying to form an entirely new eighty-five-square-mile city for the express purpose of separating from the East Baton Rouge Parish Schools, which, by the way, enroll a majority of black and economically disadvantaged students. At the same time, a bill that would create four semi-autonomous school districts in this same southern section of Baton Rouge is being considered by the Louisiana legislature. The proposed new city, St. George, would not be the first secession from East Baton Rouge Parish schools. In recent years, three municipalities have created their own school districts, though not all were particularly affluent or predominantly white.
Secession efforts are not limited to the South, with efforts cropping up recently in Malibu, California, and in northeast Pennsylvania. But the movement is centered in the South because the region’s districts tend to be larger, often enrolling students who live in cities and towns throughout an entire county as opposed to a small municipality.
I attended Malcolm X Elementary School in Berkeley, CA in the early ’70s. I’m white, and the school was 50% black. My mother, being a good liberal of the times, enrolled me in a special program that was 90% black. My experiences showed me the following:Blowback? No; here’s the first response:
1. Blacks are incredibly hard on other blacks, vicious in some cases. And I’m specifically referring to black adults treatment of black children. Being a kind, meek, intelligent black child in a black neighborhood must be a terrifying experience if you don’t have anyone to watch over you. I’d wager many are destroyed psychologically by the experience.
2. As a white person in a black community, you have basically two positions available to you on the social fabric: non-entity or target. If you keep your mouth shut and keep a low profile, you’ll be lucky and just be a non-entity. Imagine that. That was my *best* option socially. But at least my mother got to feel like a good liberal. . .
As an adult, I don’t wish blacks bad things, but I sure don’t want to live in their neighborhoods either, which is a feeling I bet I have in common with a lot of black people too. 25 years was enough, and, as an adult, the best moment of my life was to move into a neighborhood where I didn’t have to worry about my car being stolen or vandalized or people randomly hassling me on the street because I was white. Enough is enough. Call me a racist if it gives you a morally superior boost, but I know you haven’t walked the walk. It’s all theory to most of you clowns.
I witnessed a similar response from a woman I knew in Atlanta. She and her husband were similar to your parents: Stanford liberals. When they moved to Atlanta with their two daughters, they continually proclaimed their belief in public education and that their daughters would attend public schools. But after a couple of years attending Atlanta public schools, their daughters were moved into private schools. I never knew the precise reasons for the move, and when I asked, the woman became very defensive and evasive. I don’t criticize the right of this woman and her husband to do what they felt was best for their children, but they had no idea of the destructive effects of their ideas and actions.Another:
“Being a kind, meek, intelligent black child in a black neighborhood must be a terrifying experience if you don’t have anyone to watch over you.” You don’t know the half of it. Fortunately for me the horror was mitigated somewhat because:Another:
1. My family is from Ghana and the apartment building we lived at had a lot of immigrants from all over so immediate vicinity was an oasis.
2. I went to Catholic school up through 6th grade until I transferred to the public junior high. This would prove to be a negative at junior high but as far as my overall future it was a life saver. I’m a big believer in Catholic and charter schools as a result even if all they do is skim the good Black kids.
3. The African-American kids at my junior high were vicious, I can’t think of any other word to describe it. Of course there were good ones but they were a distinct minority and they caught more hell than I did because they actually lived in the projects.
Basically if you are a smart Black kid and don’t have a popular older sibling that can fight, a family rep for being in the streets or aren’t athletic. Your life in a mostly Black school setting will be hell.
I had a similar experience to yours. I attended a majority black Middle/High School in the late 1970s/early 80s in Philadelphia. My parents were social democrats and (still) clueless. I saw the fighting you speak of: even the black girls fought each other. Although I did have a few black acquaintances, a low-profile was definitely the way to go because I was attacked several times. Eventually I moved to the suburbs and the fear was gone.More:
There comes a point and time when African-Americans need to take a hard look at their culture. White folks aren’t the only ones avoiding African-American neighborhoods and schools. New immigrants of all backgrounds do as well if they can afford to.Power Line blogger Stephen Hayward seems to think this represents a "civil war" within the Left, but I'd surmise it's more like an invasion by rightists--call it desegregation. It's like when Drudge links to something from the Left sending his legions their way, except in this case the criticism is intelligent and focused (no "socialist Obama policies are responsible for this mess!" followed by a weary "looks like the Drudgetards are here").
Also African-American kids have been in the news for beating up:
1. Asians in Philly
2. Haitians in New Jersey and Miami
3. Somalis in Minneapolis
4. Hispanics all across the country.