This is all very well, Franklin, but I think we are ultimately dealing with perversity, which, like the scorpion in the tale with the frog, cannot be expected to go against its nature if it is allowed to do its thing. It will not be shamed into doing right, only goaded into finding a way, any way, to be itself.
Based on personal experience, I believe the inherently twisted or perverse seek out power not just for its own sake, but because they need power to be fully what they are. Otherwise, they are forced to disguise themselves and restrain their impulses, which is like being closeted, and they want out.
"Harvard has been mandating Title IX training that features this slide"
Though it's true that this slide certainly captures the "spirit" of much that has gone off the rails in the university's culture, I do think it's important to note that is NOT presented as an all-encompassing code of standards per se. Its original purpose was designed towards a code of conduct regarding "interpersonal romantic relations" and not everyday interactions. A fine line to be sure, but you present it as if this wheel were writ large on posters in every classroom, which it's not (yet!).
No doubt: Even at its narrowest application it's a mind-boggling form of authoritarian helicopter-parenting to think a university should be policing its students' romantic partnerships! True harassment, manipulation, blackmailing and the like are ALREADY either illegal or against most organizations' codes of conduct; this "wheel of morality" just reinforces them to the point of absurdity. Worse, it is so vague as to seem most aligned with the old Russian maxim of "better 1000 innocents are found guilty than one guilty go free" standard.
A recent article in The Economist cites the "bi-partisan" tendency of making illegal what is already illegal to score points with whatever constituency it feel it needs at the moment. Obviously, many schools have taken this to their illogical limits (as have many localities on both sides of the aisle).
"Ban it harder! An unwelcome new trend in British politics (Do Not Abduct That Cat)"
"Cats are not like diamond necklaces or Rolex watches. For one thing, they have minds and legs of their own. “They are known to occasionally make themselves at home on other people’s sofas,” acknowledged Mark Spencer, a government minister, to a committee of MPs on January 31st. The facts of feline behavior have not deterred the government from backing a new bill that will make the “abduction” of a pet cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison. The act of “inducing” a cat (perhaps with a tin of sardines) will also be caught by the new offence.
The problem with the bill, which is sponsored by Anna Firth, a Conservative backbencher, is not only, as a government “pet-theft taskforce” found, that public fears of this dastardly act far outweigh its actual incidence. It is that stealing is already punishable under the Theft Act of 1968 by up to seven years in prison, and that the stiffest sentences are already handed out for crimes that cause emotional distress."
The Title IX training was required of all students on pain of being prevented from enrolling in classes. It's not impossible that every student enrolled at Harvard since 2018 has seen this slide.
As for the Wu woman, at least she's clear enough concerning what she's about. I have much more of a problem with the white people who vote for her, without whom she could hardly be mayor of Boston.
That's an interesting artlicle, Franklin. You and I pretty much agree, except for one thing, which I suppose makes me an Aryan. Namely, non-Euros cannot become Euros. Just because upscale whites like to use blacks as a weapon against lower order whites doesn't mean they (the blacks) are going to become white and identify with a white culture, no matter how de-racinated they, the modernist progressives, pretend it is.
The goal of postliberal progressivism isn't to make the non-whites white. It's to associate the "good" whites with people of color in order perpetuate the old WASP power structures under a justifiable rationale.
Yeah, and they're running into a wall of anti-white identity. In the Age of Kneeling Nancy (who isn't WASP) their hubris invites nemesis: They're losing their minds. LOL.
You don't mean Wu herself, but rather the white Bostonians to whom she owes her position, in which case I agree with you. But again, however much of an opportunist she may be, she's only a manifestation of an underlying problem which is not her doing.
This is all very well, Franklin, but I think we are ultimately dealing with perversity, which, like the scorpion in the tale with the frog, cannot be expected to go against its nature if it is allowed to do its thing. It will not be shamed into doing right, only goaded into finding a way, any way, to be itself.
Based on personal experience, I believe the inherently twisted or perverse seek out power not just for its own sake, but because they need power to be fully what they are. Otherwise, they are forced to disguise themselves and restrain their impulses, which is like being closeted, and they want out.
Excellent piece.
"Harvard has been mandating Title IX training that features this slide"
Though it's true that this slide certainly captures the "spirit" of much that has gone off the rails in the university's culture, I do think it's important to note that is NOT presented as an all-encompassing code of standards per se. Its original purpose was designed towards a code of conduct regarding "interpersonal romantic relations" and not everyday interactions. A fine line to be sure, but you present it as if this wheel were writ large on posters in every classroom, which it's not (yet!).
No doubt: Even at its narrowest application it's a mind-boggling form of authoritarian helicopter-parenting to think a university should be policing its students' romantic partnerships! True harassment, manipulation, blackmailing and the like are ALREADY either illegal or against most organizations' codes of conduct; this "wheel of morality" just reinforces them to the point of absurdity. Worse, it is so vague as to seem most aligned with the old Russian maxim of "better 1000 innocents are found guilty than one guilty go free" standard.
A recent article in The Economist cites the "bi-partisan" tendency of making illegal what is already illegal to score points with whatever constituency it feel it needs at the moment. Obviously, many schools have taken this to their illogical limits (as have many localities on both sides of the aisle).
"Ban it harder! An unwelcome new trend in British politics (Do Not Abduct That Cat)"
"Cats are not like diamond necklaces or Rolex watches. For one thing, they have minds and legs of their own. “They are known to occasionally make themselves at home on other people’s sofas,” acknowledged Mark Spencer, a government minister, to a committee of MPs on January 31st. The facts of feline behavior have not deterred the government from backing a new bill that will make the “abduction” of a pet cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison. The act of “inducing” a cat (perhaps with a tin of sardines) will also be caught by the new offence.
The problem with the bill, which is sponsored by Anna Firth, a Conservative backbencher, is not only, as a government “pet-theft taskforce” found, that public fears of this dastardly act far outweigh its actual incidence. It is that stealing is already punishable under the Theft Act of 1968 by up to seven years in prison, and that the stiffest sentences are already handed out for crimes that cause emotional distress."
The Title IX training was required of all students on pain of being prevented from enrolling in classes. It's not impossible that every student enrolled at Harvard since 2018 has seen this slide.
As for the Wu woman, at least she's clear enough concerning what she's about. I have much more of a problem with the white people who vote for her, without whom she could hardly be mayor of Boston.
Wu exemplifies a phenomenon I call Secular Deracinated WASPism, and as such basically is white, possibly whiter than I am.
http://www.artblog.net/post/2022/02/secular-deracinated-waspism/
That's an interesting artlicle, Franklin. You and I pretty much agree, except for one thing, which I suppose makes me an Aryan. Namely, non-Euros cannot become Euros. Just because upscale whites like to use blacks as a weapon against lower order whites doesn't mean they (the blacks) are going to become white and identify with a white culture, no matter how de-racinated they, the modernist progressives, pretend it is.
The goal of postliberal progressivism isn't to make the non-whites white. It's to associate the "good" whites with people of color in order perpetuate the old WASP power structures under a justifiable rationale.
Yeah, and they're running into a wall of anti-white identity. In the Age of Kneeling Nancy (who isn't WASP) their hubris invites nemesis: They're losing their minds. LOL.
You don't mean Wu herself, but rather the white Bostonians to whom she owes her position, in which case I agree with you. But again, however much of an opportunist she may be, she's only a manifestation of an underlying problem which is not her doing.