Those who refuse to say “This is true” must fall to those who will.
Hey, Paris, how’s that assimilation thing going for you? Come to think of it, this was an attempt at assimilation, only the other way around. I wonder if this related to Hollande’s decision to close it borders? Closed borders? Isn’t that un-Christian? Incidentally, be sure to avoid the No-True-Muslim fallacy: “The Islamic State claims responsibility for Paris attacks“.
But I think we can agree that “climate change” is still the biggest threat we face.
This headlined showed about six hours before attack: “Obama On Widening ISIS Threat: ‘We Have Contained Them’.”
Looks like the standard progressive blame throwing has already begun at The Guardian, in softened form. I’d guess it’ll take a full forty-eight hours before we see reports hinting Marie Le Pen’s National Front is a bad influence, etc. Meanwhile, others are blaming…”Bloomberg group mourns Paris dead as ‘victims of gun violence’.” Idiocy knows no bounds.
Assad blames Western support of insurgents in Syria for ‘expansion of terror’ abroad https://t.co/Z8TWDHvLNV #Paris pic.twitter.com/FOx4967inF
— RT (@RT_com) November 14, 2015
Berlin or Munich next? Or New Orleans? “Syrian refugees beginning to arrive in New Orleans.”
I wrote the college material before the Paris attack and was going to leave it out, until I saw this tweet. (But there were many, many more.) If you can’t see it, it reads “Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing about the terrorist attack at #Mizzou.” She meant the poop backward swastika (which is Buddhist?).
Here follows the original material.
We saw yesterday that in the tumult of the 1960s many college administrators and professors were supportive of student demands to dismantle Western culture. We also saw, or should have seen, that this is also true of the “protests” of today.
There are many articles deriding the “special snowflakes” which are the children attending university these days, and while these are all correct in reportage—these adult-children are unhinged deluded ignorant hate-filled hyper-sensitive enemies-of-reality soft-heads—they’re largely wrong about cause. For few to none of these uneducated brutes would start waving their arms around and screeching had they not been encouraged to do so by the culture which surrounds them. This culture was already corrupt in their homes, at their high schools, and in the classrooms of the universities themselves.
You don’t see a lot of, say, material engineering or solid-state physics majors or those studying subjects which demand continuous contact with (unforgiving) reality at these rallies, and you’re not likely to find a great deal of professors in those fields, either. The reason is obvious: these students and professors are on the whole more intelligent, meaning they are less likely to be duped by the absurdities which drive (let us call them) the motivated.
Which is something you’re not supposed to say.
It’s not that some very intelligent folks aren’t leading the Tolerance Brigade, knowing full well the truth of the matter but desirous of power, it’s only that the bulk of the crowd could stand to crack open a few books instead of daydreaming of cracking open a few skulls.
You don’t think violence is on their minds? Here’s a fun item that will correct that mistake. “Amherst Students Protest ‘Free Speech,’ Demand ‘Training’ for Offenders“.
A group calling themselves the Amherst Uprising listed 11 demands they want enacted by next Wednesday. Among them is a demand that President Biddy Martin issue a statement saying that Amherst does “not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the ‘All Lives Matter’ posters, and the ‘Free Speech’ posters.”
The latter posters called the principle of free speech the “true victim” of the protests at the University of Missouri.
Going further, the students demand the people behind “free speech” fliers be required to go through a disciplinary process as well as “extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”
Which is to say, reeducation camps. At Amherst, which is already solidly progressive. Yet students there say the school is “steeped in racism.” Steeped.
“We want to stress that any action taken by Amherst College to address the demands made will not erase the fact that it exists within a larger system of oppression,” Sharline Dominguez, Cristina Rey, and Carolina Vergara wrote in a blog post apologizing for not discussing their actions with other activists. “We believe that we will not be free until this larger system is deconstructed.”
The leaders, administrators, professors, and students, really do believe the theory that non-whites cannot be racist. They really have convinced themselves, contrary to all evidence, that are embedded in systems which are so tainted with racism and other -isms that only systemic revolution can bring the cleansing they desire. We haven’t seen on-campus violence yet, but I’m guessing we’ll see an incident where a diverse student bashes a non-diverse student on the head with his “Tolerance Now!” sign, and where the assailant will suffer no ill consequences for his actions. It happened before.
Solution? Largely none. Oh, you can keep yourself and your children from the most hate-filled places, but that’s about it. The fear of being called a “racist” is too potent; it guarantees the compliance of administrators.
It isn’t only schools. This curious item from Ms Magazine shows just how far fear of reality has encroached. “Women in Combat? Let’s Reframe the Debate“. In his favor, the author hates war and would love to see its permanent absence. But he has the idea the military is a jobs program, rich with benefits and educational opportunities. While this is true, it is incidental.
The male who wrote the article is anxious non-males be seen as physically equal to males, especially in combat. Reality says no. But he cites as part of his evidence a poll which shows “76 percent of Americans favoring the integration of women into combat roles.” This is just the corrosive effect of democracy that too often insists truth is defined by vote. There are standards to be met for persons to be soldiers. He would weaken these in the name of Equality, hinting that lowered physical standards are “actually safer for everyone”. I think the gentleman realizes in these words that women are on average less capable, but he seeks to leverage the lowered standards to argue we should not go to war because, of course, we would be less capable of prosecuting a war.
When I was younger–at a time when there were still Male Help Wanted and Female Help Wanted advertisements in the newspaper–women’s roles in the military were greatly constrained, and women were not admitted to the military academies–and I asked my father, why not? The answer had nothing to do with the relative strength or weakness of women compared to men, but rather that in females there is the potential for motherhood that must be preserved. Behind this thinking was the realization that in war, men die, and there had to be a tacit acknowledgement of where future men, future soldiers, came from.
Not long afterward, women were admitted to the Air Force Academy, and newspapers ran pictures of the lucky girls in the barber chairs, getting their hair cut short (but not nearly as short as the men)—as an outward sign of “equality”.
Everybody knows that in general women are weaker than men and can’t do the physical things men do. Women have about half the upper body strength of men and about 2/3 of the lower body strength. Some people claim that with the proper training the women can do the same things men do, but they never provide any evidence. Keep in mind that women do not have the right hormones to build muscle. It doesn’t matter how much women train they aren’t going to build up a lot of muscle. I still remember the study that evaluated female army recruits capabilities and half of them couldn’t operate the charging handle on an M60 machine gun. If you think loading a 30 caliber machine gun is hard, try loading a 50 caliber.
In my home state of Wyoming tax revenues are in free-fall and the Governor has issued a hiring freeze. Nonetheless the president of our only four year university has decreed that an urgent exception to this is that we must hire a director of diversity and presumably whatever staff this person may demand. I know of no event locally precipitating this. I can only imagine that BLM fallout is now rendering us all radioactive.
While women are the means for furthering the population of the planet, there is a chance (a good one, actually) that women are not wanted in combat because they are much meaner and nastier than men and would, in fact, make war more barbaric. (Ray- Women cannot fight in an army designed for men. Design it for women and things change. And I am NOT arguing women should be in combat. Just that they could be if combat was set up for female warriors.)
Maybe the “Free Speech” advocates should picket, start hunger strikes and put up signs everywhere. Start with the administration building and work their way out. Could lead to a nasty confrontation, but either all the sane people have to leave the college and let the insane ones fight it out, or a confrontation will be necessary. Better sooner than continuing to hope for later. This is an area in which rational people show the same signs of lack of contact with reality as the protesters have–keep hoping this will all just go away.
Perhaps liberals could re-invent apartheid? Separate the STEM and arts campi but retain the single U umbrella so all the quota and diversity students can go to the arts campus…
I am a 1986 graduate of a very liberal, liberal arts program that continued to become more liberal after I left. I had a rigorous education in many ways, and I had exacting professors. But when I went back for my 10th reunion (held at the same time as the college’s graduation), the dean (new since my days, and only there one year) told the graduating class that of all their accomplishments, the one that made her proudest was the gay students standing up to the administration. That’s when I knew I was done with the place. The education that had taught me to evaluate source material and think for myself had eventually taught me to reject most of what my professors believed, and that was the icing on the cake. I wondered what all the parents thought — if a couple of students telling administrators how mean they were was the pinnacle of educational accomplishments for that class, then a whole lot of people had wasted tens of thousands of dollars.
We are seeing a big resurgence in Classical education at the elementary and high school levels, much of it from homeschoolers, charter schools, and small religious schools. There are a handful of colleges and universities that offer a really good liberal arts education, and many more that offer a pretty good one (if you choose the right professors and courses). I hope it catches on quickly… the liberal arts SHOULD be a place for top-notch scholarship and thinking, instead of what it has degraded into.
Sheri, with respect to women fighting in an army equipped for their “special meanness”, read Robert Heinlein’s “All You Zombies” in which a bartender talks about a man (true trans-sexual) fighting real dirty like a woman. It’s one of the best constructed time-travel stories in which a person (male) is his own mother and father (“a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox”).
I think we’re going to have to institute compulsory history courses, focusing on the period about 600 to 1492 AD, and the expansionism of Islam. As my wife (whose graduate specialty was Medieval History) points out, one big difference between Islam and Christianity, is that in Christianity religion (except possibly for the Byzantine Empire) was separate from the state, whereas in the early development, Islam was the state and the state Islam, and this is true for many countries today. (YOS, will you be correcting this analysis?)
We need more battles like Tours, Vienna and Lepanto, but unfortunately ISIS an Al Quaeda aren’t waging those kinds of wars.
In any event, besides praying for the fallen at Paris, we should be praying for the conversion of Muslims, particularly for Muslim terrorists.
How do you design an army for women? Are they going to nag their opponents until they surrender? Just curious.
Ray: Are you trying to invoke the wrath of women everywhere? 🙂
(I meant that intelligent women know they lack the physical strength of men and work in ways that compensate. Lighter weaponry, packs, etc. Women tend to be more into tactical warfare than brute force warfare. There would be challenges, but women are pretty good at figuring out how to do tasks that require more strength than they have using just their muscles.)
The “black lives matter” movement has never made any sense to me. By focusing narrowly and intensely on the very low percentage of black murders committed by cops, and completely ignoring the much larger percentage from black-on-black crime, the true message of the movement is communicated to me as ‘black lives don’t matter’, since it can only distract from efforts that actually have a chance of working.
In my experience, one of the hardest things for a human to do is to take responsibility for one’s lot in life. Give a human suffering an indignity, or worse, the slightest opportunity to cast the blame elsewhere, and they will jump at it, and cling to it with a death-grip.
At this point in my logic I’m probably over-reaching, but I’m tempted to view the recent college outbursts through the “five stages of loss/grief” lens. It has been obvious to us conservatives for years now that the Democrat Party has been engineering immense harm to blacks, and other aggrieved identity groups, primarily by extensive application of the harsh withering bigotry of low expectations.
In response, for years now blacks have refused to view the Democrat Party in this light (Stage 1, “Denial”), and continued to vote for Democrats in huge percentages, and continued to blame (largely disinterested and uninvolved) Republicans as the true source of evil.
But Democrats have been winning all the big policy battles lately, and absolutely demolishing the perceived enemy on college campuses, and yet the promised land looks further out-of-reach than ever. Faced with this huge blame-target loss (the realization that your saviors are actually your tormentors), the aggrieved move (finally!) into Stage 2, “Anger”.
And that’s where the college campuses are now, anger. Viewed in this light, this is actually a good thing, because the road is paved through to to fifth stage, Acceptance (assuming individual responsibility), the only place where lives are truly improved.
Moral virtue is a relative thing. This makes Assad the West’s new BFF.
The assimilation effort did a spectacular job of showing the fallacy of gun control.
Of course, there’s been terrorism at Mizzou … carried out by the protestors.
Which reminds me … With closed borders and gun control we will be vulnerable to Professor Click and her thugettes. With open borders and an armed citizenry, similar attacks will be over in a second or two. Maybe closing borders is barking up the proverbial wrong tree.
“Hey, Paris, how’s that assimilation thing going for you?”
LOL! Nice. I think I can speak for Paris when I ask, “Hey Briggs, how does it feel to know conservatives just like you own a big chunk of the blame for the very existence of ISIS?”
And… once again we find muslims denied moral agency, this time by JMJ. Whatever they do is always and everywhere ascribed to Western agency. Discounted is any motivation arising within the House of Submission itself.
A couple of decades ago, Osama bin Ladin referred to the “eighty years of humiliation” to which the umma had been subjected — and Enlightened Westerners racked their brains trying to come up with some act of the West that had gone down eighty years before the manifesto, alas to no avail.
The present Troubles go back at least to the 1920s, when Wahhabi warriors emerged from the Arabian desert to sack the Shi’ite holy places in Iraq, and when the Syrians carried out a pogrom against the Jews in Damascus. Neither the Saudi monarchy nor the State of Israel had been established yet. Go figure.
For a time, secular, pan-Arabist strongmen, from Nasser to Assad, kept a lid on things; but one by one these dictators have been removed and democracy — in the form of “kill the Copts,” et al. — has demonstrated what happens when the lid is removed from a pressure cooker.
JMJ: No, not a “big” chunk–Obama let ISIS rise when he decided we had won and brought home the troops so he could be the hero. He did not care what happened over in the Middle East—he cared only about himself and his legacy. This was not foreign policy, it was “ME” policy by Obama. I do applaud you for not exonerating Obama, however, by admitting he does share the blame. What would have happened had a conservative president been in office and not Obama is impossible to know. If any President decides ignoring terrorists or throwing tea parties and telling them how well they dress and how nice they are will stop the terrorists, terrorists win every time. Terrorists need no reason to start–it’s part of who they are. They will not stop on their own and they do not care about whether anyone likes them or not. Only force stops them, a nasty reality often lost on progressives and pacifists in BOTH parties.
All: The saddest thing in all this is the poor babies at MIzzou are now crying that Paris stole their spotlight. How terribly rude that killing over a hundred people somehow ranks as more important than whining, entitled babies at a US university. Theses protestors (I cannot call them students because it insults real students) flunk the altruism test big time. I’m sure they aced the selfish, uncaring ones though.
Hear hear. But then , JMJ believes nobody has moral agency. Even Westerners, but then there would be nobody to blame so there is this special Law of Conservation Of Blame where all the blame that cannot be blamed is the blame of the Westerner.
There is probably even some kind of Inflationist version of that Law.
I’ve observed conservatives tend towards non-interventionism. I’m referring more towards Tea Party types and not so much Republicans in general, or Fox News media types. Has more traditional conservatives had their way, I suspect there would have been no foreign wars, or if that was unavoidable, no grand plans for nation building.
Obama’s containment strategy is not necessarily unreasonable, although in the context of a previous US nation building strategy, hardly the best option, or even a coherent one. Which is why he has now made things worse. Americans have a well deserved reputation for going in guns blazing, then getting bored or exhausted, and departing a region leaving it in a bigger mess than it was to begin with.
Again, for the tenth time, Briggs, your politics stinks.
Don’t you agree that France only has herself to blame for the ISIS terror attacks? She better stop doing whatever assimilation thing Briggs talks about here, which is the only way, not Second or Third, to avoid terror attacks.
The attack has nothing to do with all other things that have happened. For example, her leaders insisted on calling ISIS “daesh,” for which ISIS threatened to cut out the tongues of her people. Another example, it has joined the US in bombing Syria.
Of course, everything is Obama’s fault. Just listen to conservatives. Trump is the kind of leader American needs. He promised to bring order to this chaos and make American great and strong again. (Which president of Germany promised the same thing in 1930s?)
(If I were “Paris”, my response would be: F*** you, Briggs! )
It happened before? Let me tell you what really had happened. A white male student, who couldn’t handle the heat generated by discussions on religion or racism or feminism (one of the topics) in a GE class, threatened to bring a gun to shoot the professor and students in the class. No emphasis on the student’s race in newspaper, simply he was a disturbed person. Happened twice. Not the same student.
Uhhmm… you’re not likely to find a great deal of professors in those fields writing a post like this, either. The reason is obvious: Mr. Briggs, copy and paste your own words if you wish. 🙂
I think, based on the engineer professors I know, the reason is probably that everyone has different priorities. And not being at the rallies doesn’t mean anything.
Mr. Briggs, wake up, women are better students, yes, even in math classes. Some colleges are giving preferential treatment to men now. Stop putting women down, please.
JH: I can think of one president this fits, one who rules without involving Congress:
“Hitler’s Nazi Party became the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, leading to his appointment as chancellor in 1933. Following fresh elections won by his coalition, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which began the process of transforming the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany, a single-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism.” Wiki
The only party talking socialism and ruling by edict not votes would be the current one in office. (Love that intelligent piece of profanity. I assume English is not your strong point, nor is reasoning. Proving you are incapable of rational thought may be something you think makes you smart and liked, but it really just screams “I am too stupid to present an argument so I’ll use swearing and insults. Makes one proud, doesn’t it?)
I was not aware that you were present at the campus violence. Perhaps you should post your video to prove what happened because you KNOW what happened. Share.
You might find out a lost of professors write essays like this if you left your protective little bubble of ultimate truth and actually checked out what is going on outside in the real world, though admittedly, you probably won’t believe anything that might shake your faith.
Surely you can’t be so stupid as to believe women are so much better in math than men? Oh wait, you probably are. (As long as women are as emotional and lacking in reasoned discourse as yourself and other feminists, you don’t deserve to be listened to. Women like you should be held up as examples of how women should NEVER behave. You’re an insult to all women.)
Is mathematical ability the pinnacle of human intelligence? I always thought of it as a rather ordinary ability. Most pocket calculators can beat most humans at solving maths equations. Doctor Briggs also is of the opinion that chess playing skill is the height of human intelligence, yet an unintelligent machine beat the human grand master not so long ago.
Will: Mathematical ability is not the same as computational ability. The calculator may solve the equation: but something outside the calculator must set up the equation in the first place. Abstract algebra, ring theory, general topology, differential manifolds, and the like do not in general involve the solution of numerical equations.
Similarly, a chess expert may indeed load up a computer with every possible chess move (or at least all the games in the American Chess Players Handbook, and the computer will then dutifully locate a game matching the current configuration and select a move in one that leads to victory. Fritz Leiber wrote an amusing story, “The 64 Square Madhouse” back in 1962 about the first computer entered in a chess tournament.
You’re confusing problem solving ability, which indeed I suspect, is a greater indicator of intelligence, than ‘mathematical ability’, which is ill defined, and might simply mean to some, the ability to solve mathematical equations. I.e., execute a recipe. Any machine can do that successfully, indeed better, than a human.
What a human does to win a chess match may not be much different from what a machine does to win a chess match. The human’s pattern recognition system is in some respects superior to our current chess playing software, but chess computers have greater strengths in other areas.
Neither is a particularly good example of what might be described as icons of intelligent behaviour. Although the ideologically minded (and I put religious people in that category, not just Progressives), will always work backward from their belief systems. Many of Dr Brigg’s stranger beliefs (including yours) can be traced back to exegesistic interpretation of Biblical texts. Arguments are ‘won’ by declaring one’s definition as inclusive of X and exclusive of Y.
Ye Olde Statistician prefers to ignore certain inconenient facts–such as gun-running from Libya to Syria with particpation of American agencies, the role of NATO ally Turkey in advancing IS, the role of American allies, KSA and Qatar in funding IS, the role of NATO itself in destablizing Libya etc etc.
This is what, I believe, JMJ was referring to and not denying agency to any one.
‘mathematical ability’, which is ill defined, and might simply mean to some, the ability to solve mathematical equations. I.e., execute a recipe.
That’s why it’s better to be more specific. If you mean computational ability, that’s one thing. A machine could very well be programmed to take any two sides of a right triangle and compute the third. Mathematical ability per se I would associate with the ability to come up with the Pythagorean Theorem. Or, more broadly, to discern which equation would shed light on a problem. Why, for example, did Newton decide on an inverse square law? (Hint: he did not discover it by analyzing data.)
Of course, it might mean “to some” no more than the ability to foot an invoice correctly or to figure out the proper amount of change at the checkout. But just imagine what evolution might mean “to some.” We can’t hold an idea hostage to the least perceptive among us.
You’re confusing problem solving ability
Confusing it “with” what? Perhaps two degrees in mathematics has skewed my notion of what mathematical ability entails.
Many of Dr Brigg’s stranger beliefs (including yours)…
Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? Shelter the stranger? Love your enemies? Some of them are very strange.
…can be traced back to exegesistic interpretation of Biblical texts.
You seem to feel that Catholics and Orthodox base their beliefs on a text. It would be better to say that the base their text on their beliefs. We trace our exegesistic interpretation of Biblical texts back to our strange beliefs. The Orthodox in particular cite the Holy Traditions and do not even have a single book. The Church was a going concern before the texts were chosen.
Sure. Sunni and Shi’ite would not be going after each other if not for the Americans. Irredentists would not yearn for the caliphate, nor for the extermination of the Jews had it not been for NATO (and NATO member Turkey!) It’s more fun to Western parties to niggle one another than to look into the internal dynamics of the House of Submission.
Believe or not, ““f*** you” is better than calling people stupid. No, I am not saying that women are so much better in math than men. What is my faith? Did I say I was present at the campus violence? Is English your first language?
I am using Briggs’ own words to show that his reasoning doesn’t make sense because all I need is to change what he said a bit.
You are right, I cannot be that stupid to believe women are so much better in math than men. I cannot be that stupid to believe mean are so much better in math than woman by looking at the top top percentage of mathematicians.
And I don’t care to evaluate your intelligence.
Bedarz Iliaci: You certainly believe America is THE most powerful nation on the planet. America orchestrated religious strife that has existed for centuries, destabilized countries that were absolutely stabile under their warmongering leaders, etc. I had no idea America was so utterly powerful and controlled so many countries and activities. It seems strange America hasn’t saved France from these terrorist attacks–America doesn’t help its allies? It seems strange America did not prevent 9-11, unless of course it was part of a conspiracy.
I don’t really understand why America hasn’t just taken what it wants from these countries—you know, bombed the civilizations out of existence and taken the oil. It’s all about might and conquering, right? Why isn’t America just taking what it wants?
JH: Really? FU is better than calling people stupid? How does one come up with that conclusion? FU is telling someone to go away, what they are saying is not worth hearing. It dismisses someone that might be right but the listener just does not care or want to know. Big improvement over stupid, right?
I said that swearing rather than reasoned discourse screams out that one is too stupid to present an argument. It does, and if you engage in that behaviour, then it puts you in that category. Don’t want to be called stupid or your actions called stupid, don’t do stupid things.
You said women were better students than men even in math classes and colleges were starting to give preferential treatment to men. If that does not mean women are better at math, then are you arguing that being a “good” student but failing courses is better than being a “bad” student but acing the course? If women are better students in math but not better at math, “better student” is defined how? Agreeable and part of the team? Actually learns the material (apparently not)? Clarification is needed.
You said “let me tell you what really had happened”. You can only know something with that certainty if you were there. Otherwise, you are going by hearsay and you do not know “what really had happened”. I was assuming you were there rather than claiming to be able to tell us what really happened when you had no such knowledge.
“Changing what he said a bit” is not using Briggs own words. It appears you were intimating that professors in physics don’t write columns like this because these “professors are on the whole more intelligent, meaning they are less likely to be duped by the absurdities which drive (let us call them) the motivated”. Writing a column about the absurdities and the wrongness thereof seems to be fine under this statement. Participating in exposing the absurdities seems fine. Participating in the absurdities—now if the professors were doing that, Briggs would be wrong with his statement.
“Faith” does not equal religion. You might want to read up on the difference between the two.
Feel free to evaluate or not evaluate my intelligence, my arguments or whatever you want.
Well, I see you’ve adopted the common method of campus discourse, now so common between students and professors. I dig it. Makes it easy to relate to them, man.
I already snarkly explained why Briggs question is not acceptable. Let me repeat my point in a different way. Briggs said that his stance against same-sex marriage cost him a job. What kind of person would ask him “how is the gay bashing thing going for you?” after hearing this news?
his stance against same-sex marriage … “gay bashing”
against same-sex marriage ? gay bashing
“’Faith’ does not equal religion. You might want to read up on the difference between the two.”
What is the reasoning process that leads you to such reply?
At a guess, I would say it is the fact that Faith ≠ religion.
Well, liberals and blacks are automatically in the wrong
What makes you think that blacks are automatically in the wrong? There are many conservative blacks.
Editor’s note: YOS, if you didn’t mean unequal, let me know and I’ll change.
JH: I’m sure there are plenty of people who would ask “how’s the gay bashing thing going for you” after finding out he lost a job because of being against same-sex marriage. In fact, some comments here have basically said that, so I’m unsure what your point is.
Your faith is that what you believe and are told is correct. This was in response to your comment telling what really happened at Mizzou which I seems to show you have faith in your news sources and will not accept any other version. You rejected Briggs statement and inserted this example.
I do not know for certain there is a place called Singapore, but it is well supported by evidence. On the other hand, the “hands up, don’t shoot” appears to have been a complete and utter lie, yet people still believe it. Without video, it’s he said/she said and no one really knows. The preponderance of evidence says hands were not up, but no one will ever really know. Some people believe whatever version aids their cause, irrespective of the evidence. This is quite evident in the followers of the “black victim” preachers like Sharpton and Jackson.
Black students have their own priorites and some of them are flat out WRONG. The football couch is only interested in getting funding and winning games. Nothing more. Racial tensions are used as an excuse to riot and behave badly and have been for years. One of the “poor babies” had a father who is a millionaire. So why is he whining? Also, this type of behaviour just increases the hatred of blacks demanding privilege they did not earn. It makes certain no one will ever be color blind—it will not be allowed because then black privilege would evaporate. Same for feminists. You have to keep encouraging hatred and victimization if you want to stay in business as a black activist. That is who encourages this and organizes it in many cases. (By the way, the swastika appears to be a lie. In the day and age of camera phones everywhere, no one snapped a photo. Why do you suppose that happened?)
Yes, liberals are automatically in the wrong when it comes to politics. They enslave people and make babies out of adults. That’s as immoral as slavery. As for blacks, sorry, you are way off base on that one. You assume because I don’t agree with spoiled, obnoxious black students that I know nothing of blacks. Bad assumption.
YOS: The reply was because I believed JH was asking what her religion was and why I was knocking it. She really wanted an explanation of what I called her faith, which was faith in the liberal cause and media. As for why faith and religion are not the same, faith is always part of religion but religion does not have to be part of faith, as seen in JH’s apparent faith in her sources of information.
Really? The football coach wasn’t worried about being fired? Not playing any games would win them more games? Such publicity would get them more money? Yes, you know it all.
Both incidents happened just downstairs from my office. Knowing where I work, Briggs can easily google to see if those incidents happened if he wishes.
Not going to discuss the same sex marriage issue. However, as a gentleman, assuming that you have a different view as Briggs on this issue, would you ask Briggs such question? Maybe you would, but my upbringing tells me it’s mean…
Granted that faith ≠ religion, I am not asking Sheri what she thinks what my religion is. So, still, what is the unshakable faith that Sheri presumes that I have or I have expressed here?
I am not denying there are black conservatives, either. However, my comment was directed to Sheri. Is there evidence in this blog indicating that Sheri has ever taken the side of blacks or liberals when something happened involving blacks? Maybe there is. I gotta to admit I don’t read all posts and comments.
I have my priorities.
What is the common method of campus discourse? I certainly would like to hear about it from a non-academic like you. I, though can’t claim to knowquantum mechanics or Shakespeare or DFQ, can probably tell you if you are correct.
Meanwhile, back on topic, the following quote:
The refusal to deal with reality — and I mean hard-tack, material, worldly reality here — is paradoxically the consequence of refusing to deal with spiritual realities. It comes home to us again as the fatuous displays of an affected grief continue in Paris, and sympathetically all over the West, as also in the cells of secular Westernization, elsewhere. Of course, many in the Islamic world are not soi-disant “grieving” at all. They are quietly, and in some places noisily, exulting.
Our media do not like to report that: it contradicts the narrative of “universal values” that, for instance, President Obama was supporting, when he managed to deliver an address on the occasion of the massacre in which, so far as I can count, every single statement was demonstrably false. ……….
As I watch the great masses outpouring their fake grief in fits of populist emotion, I realize that they, much more than any Muslim fanatics, have determined what that future will be. They are, in the strictest sense, de-moralized. The fact that they indulge in the sacrilege of godless “candlelight vigils” is an indication of how far gone they are: to a mess no longer within the human capacity to repair. They are — and have been for some time — completely incapable of defending what remains of our civilization, against a quite straightforward threat.
— David Warren
On candlelight vigils
JH: Of course the football coach was not afraid of being fired. That’s where the school’s money comes from. Plus, the administration has no spine and a spine is required to fire a football coach. If the coach had gone against the players, sure, then he might be fired as a racist. (And yes it will get the University more money. You really are clueless as to how pervasive this cancer of entitlement and victimhood is, aren’t you? Anyone crying “racism” or “rape” or anything similar gets thousands of dollars to prove the donor is not guilty of racism. Announce you hired a conservative political science professor and the donations dry up. Announce you fired the GE professor and donations dry up unless the GE prof was not showing respect as demanded by the gender police.)
Downstairs from your office? That explains a lot. However, I’m going to bet you have no picture of the swastika and being upstairs, you still did not witness the incidents.
Perhaps if you read the entire blog, you’d notice I don’t deride blacks for being blacks. I fully supported charging some police with murder for shooting blacks in the back or other similar cases. Same if the police officer did this to whites, latinos or whomever. I also deride whites who whine and play victim, so I am an equal opportunity derider of those who whine.
I don’t side with liberals because I told you they are wrong and bad for society. So I go against white, black, latino, hispanic, muslim, etc. liberals (I’m not sure if there can be a muslim liberal….). It’s not the race, it’s the political philosophy.
I stated that liberalism seems to be your faith, as you consistently side with the liberal philosophy and news reports, rejecting that which does not fit the liberal ideology. Your assessments of things appear to be based on liberal sources and their interpretation of things. (Do you believe the slogan “Black Lives Matter” and one cannot say “White lives matter”? Do you believe “Hands up, don’t shoot”? Was poor little Trayvon a victim—of other than liberal ideology?)
YOS: I like the quote on candlelight vigils. Such things as that, teddy bears and flowers left at the scene, etc are hollow behaviours. Very popular, widely practiced hollow behaviours. There was a time when people died or were killed that people got together, helped the surviving family members (if there were any) bringing food, helping with errands, etc. They supported the family. Now they hold meaningless vigils and bring in the grief counselors. It’s truly scary how many people cannot or will not deal with reality.
YOS: This was on NBC news tonight—how to lie to your child about the real world by telling him flowers and candles will protect you against guns. How horribly cruel, yet the news guy loves it. We are definately seriously messed up in this world.
The jihadis shoot and murder hundreds.
The West retaliates with flowers, mutual hugs, weeping, and candlelight vigils.
The jihadis tremble.
At least the Russians and now the French are doing something. But not too long ago, the president of the USA told us this was the inconsequential “junior varsity” and that they were “contained.”
Sheri, as usual, assume whatever you want. Totally nonsense. I don’t really care to explain myself to you. May I suggest that you apply all the insults… oh…no… arguments about others to yourself?