@@TheEpikak By the time a teacher gets a certificate, they have gone through a very intense program of indoctrination within colleges and universities. The school administrators simply hire those who are sufficiently in line with those programs. We are coached to use special words in the interviewing process: inclusion, diversity, etc.
@@lumberpilot yeah that sounds about right. In my field (medicine), you often have to justify to your journalistic writings to the field by explaining how it also promotes diversity, inclusion, and equity. I was confused until I started following people like HM and James Lindsay.
It feels like just a matter of time until the Harvard University Medical Faculty starts teaching that anyone with 'problematic' political opinions is unworthy of treatment.
One thing about women that always drives me nuts, as a man, is their emotionality. Compared to men, a lot more women get emotionally worked up about a lot of things. You see this a lot among SJW...getting emotionally worked up about "social justice" "fairness" and protecting the vulnerable. Why are women like that? In a word: Evolution My guess has always been that women's bodies evolved to appeal to men, but much about women did not evolve to appeal to men, it evolved to take care of infants. We humans would not still be here, if that were not true. Our survival depended on females keeping infants alive, during evolution. So I think much of women's physiology evolved for infant care. Women have strong instincts to care for the vulnerable, because that's what they were doing, for the past 200,000 years. This is obviously strongly related to the concepts of "social justice" and "fairness", which are all about protecting the vulnerable. So I don't see the SJWs as bad people. They are just women who evolved to have children, bond with those children, protect their children. They now live in a culture where women are encouraged to economically compete with men, to delay child birth often till they are 30 years old. This social organization of ours, based on feminism, starkly contrast and is at odds with women's evolutionary instincts. Feminist Carol Gilligan and Martin Kolhberg did a science paper on the stages of moral development in humans. They found an odd thing: Women and men had different levels of moral development. They divided up moral development into 5 stages, with stage 3 being the middle stage. This stage 3 was centered around emotion based morality. It turns out, women usually stall out at stage 3 and have a very strong preference for emotion based morality....compared to men. Why is that? Evolution, obviously. As women evolved to protect the young and vulnerable...babies...this involved being sensitive to the subtle emotional cues that babies gave off. Women who played this game well, who were very emotionally tuned in to nuance and emotional distress in infants, the children of those women survived. So SJWs are simply normal women whose evolutionary instincts are being thwarted by a sick feminist society that tells them not to have children. Women's emotional hardware, their emotionality is a good thing. It kept us alive. Trouble is, in the modern age, we tell those women not to have babies. Again with nature, by the time a woman is 30......90% of her eggs are dead. And what are we doing, with our culture? Contradicting the rules of evolution. No wonder women at university are so screwed up.
@@TimBitts649 Interesting and very plausible theory. If I can either add or amend anything, I would suggest that women's instinct to care about the weak and the vulnerable can be a force for good not only in their family lives, but also if it is channeled* into charitable work. (* I guess maybe Freud would say "sublimated", but I'm not sure.) Giving to the homeless, academic help to struggling kids, animal shelters, these all take care of the weak and vulnerable, are respected by everyone and don't do any obvious damage if done half-way competently. Not so for politics. That's why we should encourage more of the former and less of the latter, as an outlet for the care-taking instinct. And I don't think we should be sexist about it; men should also be encouraged to give and to care, although perhaps with a greater emphasis on the volunteer fire service if that's still a thing, or other areas where women's unique gifts are less well suited than men's**. (** I'm talking about population averages, not all men are physically stronger and more emotionally blunted than all women, etc.) I like to joke that in the past, women looked after the young, the old and the sick in their home whereas today they do it professionally (nurses, kindergarten class teachers). I think I should add "and politically" to that. And I think there's something about the impulse that's right and good and necessary: I want to live in a society where those who can't take good care of themselves are taken good care of by the rest of us. And while I somewhat respect the underdog-ism that's motivating the SJWs, they tend to misindentify the underdogs. Jonathan Haidt put it well in one of his lectures: we should focus a lot more on class and a lot less on gender and race. (Me speaking again:) Of course, that will benefit those who genuinely struggle more than it will benefit the SJW class, which I'm fine with.
@@jonaskoelker I'm a woman and I agree. I've channeled my emotionality into: 1. Rescuing and rehabbing animals 2. Working at disaster sites Caregiving can be a wonderful thing if we channel it towards either having children or in other ways like volunteer work. But if not, it can psychologically metastasize into a force for terrible societal destruction if it's turned against men ("the Patriarchy") or against one's own national heritage and people.
Tim Bucks I’m a woman and I believe women have produced their own problematic evolution here. I witnessed it beginning in the 70s. Wanting to prove that women could do anything men could do. Not realizing the importance of what they WERE doing. And now, 50 years later, I believe that women have emotionalized politics, policy, business, education and more. Name any dem. policy and I’ll identify the emotion behind it. Logic has been replaced. (This is my very brief hypothesis!)
Heather MacDonald doesn't get nearly as much recognition as she deserves. She is right there with Pinker and Haidt, although more to the right than both, profoundly sensible and interesting to listen to.
Pinker and Haidt are sitting on the fence, bragging about "the best world-wide stats we've ever had". Kevin McDonald and Jared Taylor on the other hand are working on things I could get behind.
I taught English Literature in the inner city and I can tell you without a doubt that Maya Angelou simply does not compare with the sublimity of Kipling or Hardy. Students deserve nothing but the best regardless of the identity of the author.
I agree. My son is at the Illinois Math and Science Academy and he's being taught that the Harlem Renaissance is just about all there is to American literature. And also the misty elevation of Maya Angelou. Frankly, I've skimmed her stuff and haven't thought much positive or negative about it.
@@lumberpilot - She is, in fact, a very good novelist. Why not teach her within the context of American Literature instead of rushing to make silly pronouncements about the downfall of English Literature?
We're looking in the wrong direction by dissecting the past - black creativity and voices HAVE been suppressed. Sadly a lot of that wisdom is gone forever. But..... we don't have time to dissect the past. Just be KIND - listen to people not on account of their skin NOW. And everybody will get a say in FUTURE....y'know..where we're heading. And dont' go up the sleazy, arrogant, bitter path Heather makes for you.
I agree! Kipling and Hardy are of completely different eras and American experiences than Angelou. They are not comparable, leave them in their respective historical and literary places. While men such as Kipling and Hardy were being exposed to some of the best the world had to offer, folks like Angelou were playing catch-up and were often still oppressed. The experiences are totally different and thus their works are as well.
When it reaches the University of Chicago and MIT, then I will know that we Americans have erased all intelligible understanding of why and for what the country was founded.
We cannot hate the past because it was worse than the present. The past led to us, so if we think we're superior, we owe something to the past. It's the height of arrogance and meanness not to be grateful for the advances we've made and to think we have the virtue to sit in judgment of the past.
Hold your pearls, pearl clutcher mate - U of C is indeed a good bastion against a bunch of SJW nonsense for sure... but let's keep a sense of perspective. Heather lost that sense a long time ago when she smashed young women for not being virgins. She's shot as far as I can see but keeps coming back (sort of like herpes!) -hehheh respectfully, D.A., NYC
Neo-Marxism has reached Bob Jones University and the Southern Baptist Convention and their colleges. Herbert Marcuse is taught everywhere by people who might not even know who he was.
This country was founded by slave owners who declared that "all men are created equal"-hipocrisy at the outmost. It was the the thinking of Christopher Columbus and all subsequent "explorers" after him. Where do you think it will end? Obviously it was bound to eventually blow up in light skin folks faces. Even in 1960s there were still slaves being held deep down in the south, not many know that. This country is as backwards as ancient Rome, high technological advancements can not cover that fact. Untill people individually start questioning their motives, it will not change. Proper behavior starts at home, school is not to be held responsible because it is there only to reinforce home parenting. Unfortunatelly most kids are not PARENTED, but they are being raised like cattle, given i-phone and pretty much left to their own devices.
@@maciekkra539 just a reminder that the US is the only majority white country that has ever elected a black president. And we did it twice. That wouldn’t be possible if this country were systemically racist.
The most important functions of an American university are to transmit the legacy of Western Civilization and to teach students how to reason logically, write coherently, and read critically. Except for a few bright exceptions, our universities fail to do all four. Indeed, our most prestigious academic institutions are some of the worst, where neo-Marxists spend more time indoctrinating students than teaching them. Heather MacDonald is not exaggerating the problem. If anything, she understates it.
I read a study earlier this week where the results showed that, on average, black students spend half as much time doing homework and studying as their white counterparts and only a quarter as much time as their Asian counterparts. Think that might have something to do with the academic achievement gap rather than the "systemic racism" b.s."
And... This is why we're homeschooling our four white sons. We will teach them civics, the Great Books and the greatness of Western Civilization, and will encourage them to live to their highest potentials.
Actually, i would think that the history books were actually more factual in the past as opposed to now since our history is being changed constantly and the people re-writing the history books are usually extremely liberal.
Here's a cost to me: as a white male graduate student I was told that there'd be little interest in me by employers. I had to pursue something else as a career. And over the past years, I've been set aside while lesser qualified females got the job. But fuck me: I'm just a white guy, and wronging ME as an individual SOMEHOW remedies a past wrong in which I was not complicit. My family came to the USA in 1903 and never owned slaves but worked as tenant farmers. But I get screwed. . . and they want to screw me again and again, now talking slavery reparation. I'll never vote Democrat.
As a Russian I am hearing this "white this white that" bullshit with an owe. 30 millions of Russians were killed by racist regime of Hitler and Stalin. No blacks suffered this kind of oppression in 20th century. Yet they play victim and we are considered to be opressors. What?
An excellent talk, only one point I would disagree on: sport. "Social Justice" has in fact infested our sports organizations, in the form of demanding "trans-women" be allowed to compete in women's sports... including combat sports such as Mixed Martial Arts. There was a case last year of a female MMA fighter being pitted against a transgender opponent, without even being warned. The poor woman's skull was fractured in the opening moments of the first round, she may well never fully recover. Worse, early this year, "she" was given an award for breaking down walls in sports for the trans community.
Don't worry the war between women and trans is on. A high school (group) female are suing CT over transwomen beating all female competitors in high schools. The war is on.
Women should not go to college in their 20s. They should be married, be home making babies. All the Social Justice nonsense on campus is there because women evolved with instincts for compassion, for care of infants. We suppress those instincts, but nature wins in the end. Those instincts just get manipulated and directed by unscrupulous people. How to end this: Encourage women to be married and with children, when nature intended: in their 20s. Change the culture. The science backs me up: By Age 30, 90% of a woman's eggs are dead. By age 40, 98% of her eggs are dead. Sperm is different. It's made new, every day. A man can be a dad when he is old. A woman only is given a few years, by nature, to be a Mom. Women did not evolve to compete for power against men, in their 20s. They evolved to make babies in their 20s. Our culture is bullshit.
One thing about women that always drives me nuts, as a man, is their emotionality. Compared to men, a lot more women get emotionally worked up about a lot of things. You see this a lot among SJW...getting emotionally worked up about "social justice" "fairness" and protecting the vulnerable. Why are women like that? In a word: Evolution My guess has always been that women's bodies evolved to appeal to men, but much about women did not evolve to appeal to men, it evolved to take care of infants. We humans would not still be here, if that were not true. Our survival depended on females keeping infants alive, during evolution. So I think much of women's physiology evolved for infant care. Women have strong instincts to care for the vulnerable, because that's what they were doing, for the past 200,000 years. This is obviously strongly related to the concepts of "social justice" and "fairness", which are all about protecting the vulnerable. So I don't see the SJWs as bad people. They are just women who evolved to have children, bond with those children, protect their children. They now live in a culture where women are encouraged to economically compete with men, to delay child birth often till they are 30 years old. This social organization of ours, based on feminism, starkly contrast and is at odds with women's evolutionary instincts. Feminist Carol Gilligan and Martin Kolhberg did a science paper on the stages of moral development in humans. They found an odd thing: Women and men had different levels of moral development. They divided up moral development into 5 stages, with stage 3 being the middle stage. This stage 3 was centered around emotion based morality. It turns out, women usually stall out at stage 3 and have a very strong preference for emotion based morality....compared to men. Why is that? Evolution, obviously. As women evolved to protect the young and vulnerable...babies...this involved being sensitive to the subtle emotional cues that babies gave off. Women who played this game well, who were very emotionally tuned in to nuance and emotional distress in infants, the children of those women survived. So SJWs are simply normal women whose evolutionary instincts are being thwarted by a sick feminist society that tells them not to have children. Women's emotional hardware, their emotionality is a good thing. It kept us alive. Trouble is, in the modern age, we tell those women not to have babies. Again with nature, by the time a woman is 30......90% of her eggs are dead. And what are we doing, with our culture? Contradicting the rules of evolution. No wonder women at university are so screwed up.
When i was at Uni as a Mature Student in 1981 on the site i was on there were 2 lecturers out of many 1 of whom was pro Mao Zedong era and 1 pro Russian. Neither of them had been outside the corridors of academia and neither of them had been to the countries they admired so much. There were quite a few mature students with real world work experience. It was so easy to pull apart their arguments piece by piece. Maybe Universities should have people who have lived under so called socialist/communist regimes and escaped them do talks about what it was really like and educate these brainwashed students and their lecturers. Welcome to the future of mediocrity courtesy of the left. One of my lecturers on Technology and underdevelopment was Ethiopian he was warning everybody about this all those years ago.
i think your a little confused because you mention china and russia (but i assume soviet union). They both called themselves communist but they have totally different economic systems. Soviet system was a socialist system and the chinese system is a capitalist system.
@@jimsmith4658 No im not confused these 2 lecturers were always arguing about the differences although to us there was no difference beteeen the 2 countries.
@@jimsmith4658 hello, China isn't capitalist. China is Fascist. Fascism is the merger of capitalism and totalitarian government. Just like Hitler's germany.
@@xcen1 fascist, you mean just like the u.s.a. remember "too big to fail" , or all those military bases in over 100 countries.....that sure doesn't sound like capitalism to me
@@jimsmith4658 Okay what did I say about usa? I would say its capitalist, because the capitalist forced the government to bail it out. You must be trolling. You're throwing everything all at once. When I'm talking fascist I'm referring to how its run internally. When you say it has 500 military bases around the world, well that sounds like Imperialist. Fascist would be Hitler waging a war for his own pleasure. That is the people in governmental power control everything. America is capitalist because the capitalist control the elected officials.
I took my son out of public school when he was in second grade and placed him in Catholic school because of this insanity. He received an excellent education because in Catholic school, everyone is truly equal and the rules are enforced on everyone equally. Since he is now a well adjusted and productive member of society at the age of 34, I think I did the right thing.
It’s getting so bad I worry that black doctors who have poorer scores and therefore likely higher malpractice will be covered by the system to continue to harm patients.
Tell you what - next time you go to the doctor, make sure he/she is a black one. Then when he/she tells you what to do for your health, do the exact opposite. That way you'll be sure to be acting in your best interest. You should ask him about the medical benefits of taking strychnine...
18:06 "Minority students who have been catapulted by racial preferences into schools for which they are not academically competitive inevitably struggle in their class: this is a burden that they don't deserve to bear."
Yes, something other great minds have pointed out. Affirmative action students who get picked to go to Brown, Yale, Harvard etc could have instead gone to a local university in Florida or North Carolina and succeeded and fit in well. Instead at universities which typically include the cream of the crop these students often struggle. So yeah in time they need safe spaces and their own dorm rooms and have feelings of resentment and no longer have an interest in paying attention to another lecture from another white professor, unless he/she/they/them is an ally. Some students who make it into a local university on their own and work hard and succeed then go to a university such as Brown, Yale etc to further their education. If that's the path they take the likelihood that they will succeed is so much greater. It's an old argument and it seems logic is losing the battle.
Blacks have never had it as good as they do now. They can attach "Black" to TV shows, even a TV channel, universities, a political caucus, beauty contests, a history month whereas if whites did the same exact thing it would be called racist. You would be hard pressed to find TV shows, commercials, newscasts, talk shows, movies etc, etc that do not include blacks....most of the time they outnumber whites. And why are Hispanics and Asians not complaining because they are not near as well represented?
My only issue with what she’s saying is that she thinks us folks on the right view Trump as a smooth statesman and truth sayer. Not true. We se him for what he is. He blusters and he bends the truth in the name of hyperbole, but he’s willing to go to the mat for us and we haven’t had someone like that lead us in a very very long time. So we’ll take him, faults and all, as long as he keeps fighting.
@@ppss.6302 That's a ridiculous question asked by a ridiculous person, who is clearly so consumed with hate and delusions that you can't be a part of any rational discussion. Move on, ridiculous person. I've no interest in engaging with fools.
@@guzinkarides6670 pull your head from trumpist propaganda arse first, your perceptions are too twisted for any rational discussion? What the crook in chief has done for you? I know you get warm and fuzzy kicks from the fuhrer, but it has much more to do with the right wing propaganda machine littering working stiffs minds for decades than with trump. They zombified you to the point they can train you to idolize just about anything and anybody.
I told the HR manager that if we were to discuss anything at all he would have to address me as a human being and not a resource. There is no such thing as a human resource.
@airscrew1 ...I just went and searched online for when the change occurred. Strangely, most articles (including those on Wikipedia) were very cagey about pointing out when the change in terminology came. This article www.hronline.co.uk/blog/the-history-of-personnel-management/ says it occurred in the Eighties.
@airscrew1 Trees,water,air etc. are resources. Need anymore be said? Personnel breaks down to person nel. Person being operative.. Person as opposed to resource. Each must decide which is which.
Always inspiring to listen to Mac Donald except for one major exception, and it isn't just with her, this is pretty well ubiquitous among the "acceptable" right wing activist camp. The constant framing of how "defective" the US used to be in terms of racial oppression specifically, and therefore, by default, Western culture as a whole, needs to stop. It needs to stop because it just isn't warranted, in other words, it just isn't true, and it puts our camp at an extreme disadvantage in the culture war. How terrible were American cultural norms "back in the day"? Compared to what? Arab cultural norms of the same period? African cultural norms of the same period? Native American treatment of one another? Just how terribly "racist" was a society that allowed this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) I understand that framing the issue as such is rather shocking to the vast majority, it would have been to me 20 years ago as well, but this is only because the overton window has been pushed so far to the left in recent decades. And no, I'm not "justifying slavery" or "white supremacy", or anything as such. Such statements are nonsensical. The point is that if we are to apply the cultural standards of yesteryear to all peoples of today, every culture, without exception, would fail miserably, and yet, this is not being done. What is being done is that yesteryear's standard is only being applied to white, western culture, not any other, and this is not by accident, not in the least. It is a calculated attack, and by apologizing for it constantly, especially in the manner that Mac Donald and other right wing academics and pundits do, plays right into the hands of the left. I mean, how can you therefore then say, which she does , and does so constantly and passionately, that "you will find deep meaning, truth and diversity in the classics of the past"? How so Heather? You just finished groveling about how the US completely betrayed it's own values from the outset through racial exploitation. Surely a culture that would do such an abominable thing wouldn't be worth studying at all. And this is EXACTLY what leftists say. Yes, it can be admitted, and should be, that there were abuses in the past. But these aren't "betrayals". These weren't "gross oppression". These abuses were simply a sign of the times and were due to fallen human nature, across the board, in ALL CULTURES. Furthermore, if you really wanted to drive the point home, maybe most of these so called "abuses' or "oppression" were common sense strategies for dealing with a disparate, multi ethnic society. For example, since the complete dismantling of segregation and the implementation of the civil right's act, there has been a tsunami of black violence against whites, while the inverse, completely contrary to the hysterical claims from the left media, is totally absent. Black run cities and areas have almost exclusively devolved into third world like, barely operating slums. Maybe in the so called "ignorant, abominable past", as described by Mac Donald and others, our forefathers weren't as dumb as we are today and could plainly see, as one can today if they wish, if you give complete "equality" to black culture in a western nation the results will destroy your society. And in order to prevent this from happening, you must use some pretty strict methods. This of course in itself is a good argument against "diversity" and multi-cultural and multi-ethnic societies. I will no longer apologize for the so called "sins of the past" of my culture. Not in the least, in fact, I will do the opposite, and this is the only winning strategy. If any apologies are to be given, it is for the current times and what is being done TODAY to this great society by radical leftists and minorities.
Pro tip - when you have to caveat your argument with “no, I’m not justifying slavery” that’s a good indication that it’s probably not a compelling or well thought out argument.
@@ronrolph Pro tip - when you discard a well written, several paragraph, logical argument based on 4 words because they obviously trigger you in an infantile, illogical manner, you reveal yourself to be a complete idiot and would have been much better off no responding at all. As the proverb says, "even a fool can be thought to be wise if he remains silent".
I mean the best argument that exists against multicultural is simply pointing out the success of countries like japan, Norway, Israel, Iceland and so on. Countries that don’t have the issue of low social trust because people aren’t constantly effected by subconscious biases. Everyone has a subconscious hierarchy for how they see people, there is no way around that. Homogenous nations have an easier time passing social programs intended to help the disadvantaged because the people who would be footing the bill won’t have an extra layer of animosity towards the people who will be receiving the payout. This is not an endorsement of disliking other groups of people, simply an explanation of the strongest argument against multiculturalism. The strongest argument for multiculturalism is that it helps the economy, by gathering a diverse group of people who think differently from one another. It is easier to solve a problem with a bunch of different perspectives looking at it and finding a solution. But again I think people seriously underestimate just how important societal trust is…when the going gets tough, people will retreat into tribalistic tendencies if they have the option to do so. If an easy (albeit unfounded) scapegoat is available, people will without much hesitancy dogpile on that scapegoat. When that option isn’t available, then people start asking themselves the tough questions. Life gets a whole lot simpler when there are less excuses and nobody to blame but yourself, or when it’s clear and obvious who’s fault it is for a problem occurring. It is for all these reasons that I say multiculturalism is neither bad nor good, it is a trade off. A nation gains the potential for more dynamic economic growth while sacrificing social cohesion to get it. I guess it depends on what you prioritize as a nation, for a place like America where the culture is literally freedom and rugged individualism, I see why multiculturalism would be welcomed by societal institutions and those in power (as an American I have no qualms about saying America is a historical anomaly, there is no nation remotely close to what America is like and there will never be, it’s a bizarre set of circumstances that somehow against all odds created one of the most unique and powerful nations in history). However for cultures that are more focused on maintaining the status quo, valuing long term stability and not taking any big risks that could lead to collapse, I understand why they would be more hesitant about multiculturalism. Also it’s important to remember that it’s not totally black and white, this thing is a spectrum in terms of ideology. Lot of grey area. Anyway those are my thoughts. I’m sure plenty of leftist keyboard crusaders would love to crucify me for saying this, despite the fact that I said nothing insensitive about any group and pointed out merit on both sides of the argument. It matters not. “Your boos mean nothing to me, I’ve seen what makes you cheer”
"The Culture of Narcissism," C. Lasch, 1979. .......Self destruction........ EXACTLY........ what Sigmund Freud predicted for post World War II Western Democracies and the Liberal Social Welfare Spending Agenda. Epidemic Narcissistic Personality Disorders replacing Neurosis as the predominate psychological problems in the developed world. PS: I love Heather MacDonald. And, Camille Paglia. And, Jordan Peterson.
USSR. The kingdom of the left, where they put Russians in GULAG so that they create equality for minor nations who preffered knives over books 200 years ago and nothing changed. The West supported genocide of Russians by Caucasians, now support genocide of Russians by Ukranians. God help us to servive this century.
It bothers me that I have to listen to someone sympathetic to the Hoover Institute to get some needed explanation. For a lefty that's hell, and it hurts if they learn truth from the right. What happened to self-critique and internal controversial debate among the left, and the commitment to avoid following cults? Did they all become de facto Stalinists or Maoists without noticing? Why can I find hardly any one decidedly progressive who stands up with vigor and principle against this "Culture Revolution"? (Except Chomsky perhaps). Everyone on the left seems to say that it's pure hyperbole and exaggeration to see parallels to the Maoist Culture Revolution, and I used to kind of believe that. But I see now the parallel to Maoism increasingly clearly, because many decades ago I was a sympathizer of Maoism - at that time when China was so utterly closed up that no information could escape, except state propaganda and what the CIA would spread as counter propaganda - but who would listen to the CIA, an instrument of American imperialism. I still remember that it felt so good and self-righteous to be a Mao fan, and it gave me the illusion of "purpose" as a young student, and my world view was considerably simple and none complex. Boy - how my my eyes opened and how depressing it felt when finally the truth came out about the horrors of that epoch. I swore to myself there and then to never assume something to be a correct world view if there is nothing left that could potentially falsify it. If there is any theory of a society that explains "everything" and leaves nothing out, than it must be wrong in a big way. The complexity of human society can't be simply explained away by any ism. But still, there got to be (moneyed?) interests - at the highest places - that made it way too easy for this cult to almost completely succeed holding the universities by the balls, and increasingly all institutions - even including justice. I must again have missed something big, and everyone else must have been asleep - or payed off(?).
Race and culture are two distinct and seperate things. There may be considerable overlap in the middle of the Venn diagram, but that does not make the two synonymous. Race and ethnicity refer to immutable, hereditary physical characteristics, but a culture and its ideas and values can be embraced or rejected by those of any race or ethnicity.
Identity thinking pits all against at all and ends in violence - only solution. Is to rise above this to our shared humanity and shared thinking process and create space between us for discussion - staying in tribal thinking closes all ears
As she said, SJWs tend to think East Asians are successful because they also had some sort of white privilege. East Asian countries were also invaded and colonised by western countries during 18~19th centuries. They had lots of wars during the early & mid 20th century. Japan was bombed by two atomic bombs, Korea had a 3-year civil war that was initiated by communists who were tied to the Soviet Union and China. The two countries were almost completely destroyed. None of them has any special natural resources like oil or gas. The economic situations of those two countries at that time were not better than today's Africa. Yet, these countries are doing a lot better than African/Latin American countries now. The key was working hard and educating the next generation. Korean parents sent their children to universities even if they were hungry and had to work till night. Just consuming the free stuff that Western countries are giving and doing nothing won't you get out of poverty. I would say it is a cultural thing. East Asian countries value knowledge (learning, study) very much. But the reason why they were so weak when Europeans invaded them was that they were spending most of their intellectual power on some stupid philosophical studies while the Europeans were greatly advancing scientific and utilitarian studies. In the 18th centuries or something Korean intellectuals (who were also government officials, because government officials were first decided by tests) formed two groups and fighting on a subject of whether people are born good or evil. I'm not joking. During that time, Japan got the new scientific and utilitarian knowledge from the West, got strong, and then colonised Korea in late 19th century.
Thanks for the example. It reminded me of Greek monks who were discussing is angels have wings or not during the conquest of Constantinople by Turks in 1453.
University was never meant for everyone anyway. It long ago became a business. Much of what it was intended for has been watered down or eliminated (academics of history, literature, arts, philosophy, religion, etc.) Replaced by training for professions. And please young ladies, get married, have children, and stay home and take care of family!!!
I also find it egregious that a concentrated effort is being made to destroy Southern History---literature, culture and monuments. We are told that all southerns fought to preserve slavery and that is quite false. It is simply another political plot to further separate people in this country. The worst part is that our emotionally incontinent culture falls for it hook, line and sinker.
Why would it be a pejorative against the south if they had fought to preserve slavery? Slavery was the economic engine which drove both the Northern and Southern economies prior to the maturation of the industrial revolution. Slavery is what made European colonization in the new world economically feasible. Only the the most incredible troglodyte would ever dishonor the memories of their forebears on account of the "historical crimes" that screeching wench Heather Mac Donald drones on about.
This is what it looks and sounds like when you're perfectly allowed to complain for a living about not being allowed to complain for a living... The right to free speech (liberal democratic ideal) was never the right to force others to listen or accept what is said (authoritarian maxim). The end.
I can't wait until one day corporations will start their own Univs. Apple and google have billions and colleges / univs are profitable. I hope there will be an apple U, google U, microsoft U.
The problem, as Heather MacDonald noted, is that corporations are now infested with the diversity mentality as well. All I can say is that it took progressives 100 years to get us to this point. We need to be as determined to continue to push back. There will not be just one solution, just lots and lots of people contributing what they can.
@Annie Springer all corporations depend on profits from consumers. When their bottom lines are taking a hit and investors realize the problems they have to adjust and fix things or they'll lose out to their competitors.
I'd understand if race would be the last thing to consider when you're looking for a new employee. If you end up with two equally capable -impressive candidates and you don't know which one too choose. If it comes down to random decision between person A or B...instead of flipping a coin I would say: Let's give the black guy a chance.
What is "nihilism" but the disassociation of the individual from the society, managed by a political bureaucracy and a viscious, soulless economic system that is wholly materialistic and commercial ?
24:42 "For all of our historical sins..." So it turns out that Heather, for all of her seething bluster, has not yet figured out that apologizing for your history is the true catalysis for producing the nascent rot that that is social justice as this sets a self actualized and moral precedence for the elimination of entire groups of people.
Racism,Skin Color?I don't get IT!When I was in the Service a bunch of would go to the Beach on Weekends!My Dark colored friends sat in the Shade to Lose Color and my Lighter colored friends sat in the Sun to get Color!I think the Human Race has LOST IT!
Wrong. Diversity VS Supremacy? The left believers that there is a role not just for freedom, but also for love, in the institution(s) of government that regulate human affairs, that human life is valuable, that we, as a society, have obligations to our fellow man, that we as a society should take a little from those who have been extraordinarily blessed & give to those who bad fortune has fallen on, to those who are in great need... Men and women are different(Diversity). Women are born with the privilege of sexual capital. An ordinary man will spend their entire lives trying to get this sexual capital that women take for granted, and most will fail. When a man chooses a bad woman to immigrate into his life, he can genuinely say he didn't have any other choice to meet his social, sexual & emotional needs. When a woman chooses a "bad boy" to immigrate into her life, she almost certainly had many better options. Women need to improve their immigration policy! To meet their socio-sexual needs, men have to climb the hierarchy of needs: 1 Safety needs 2 Food and Water needs 3 Shelter needs 4 Socio-sexual needs In (1) safety needs, men die of assault/homicide more than women, have workplace deaths/injuries 10x more than women, and commit suicide 4x more often than women. Women live an average of 6 years longer than men. Men need help! Yet as a society we tax from men to give to women? Because supposedly women have greater "needs" for safety & security...? In (2) food and water needs, women are smaller and need less food to survive, yet women are more likely than men to be overweight. Yet as a society we tax from men to give to women because women "need" more food to fatten them up...? In (3) shelter needs, 71% of the homeless are men, yet 84% of those on housing vouchers are women. Yet as a society we tax from men to give to women because women "need" housing...? In (4) social and sexual needs, a man who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of products & services to his community by working a $45K/year job for years or even decades will have 1/100th the socio-sexual capital of a 25 lbs overweight women 20 years past peak fertility, who is living at home with her parent(s) with no job, no car, no income, no assets, and $50K of student loan debt. Yet as a society we tax from men to give to women because women "need" more than the socio-sexual capital monopoly they already have...? The wage gap studies feminists often speak of is increasingly disappearing, & the more variables analyzed in the studies the more the gap disappears. Given infinite variables, the gap would likely disappear completely! And it gets worse. Those studies only look at people who are employed. They neglect to notice that men are more likely to be unemployed than women, & when those excluded "zero" outliers are included in wage averages men make less than women. But it gets worse still. As women are physically smaller, they have smaller needs in every category in the hierarchy of needs. Women are safer than men, living longer and being less likely to be assaulted overall. Women are smaller than men so they need smaller food rations, smaller clothing expenses, smaller beds in smaller bedrooms in smaller houses, smaller cars with better gas millage & smaller car insurance bills! The only thing that is really "needed" in society is checks & balances on female greed & abuse of reproductive sexual capital/power. We used to have this in traditional marriage. The patriarchy community is united around the idea that sex should only be within traditional marriage. Thus, if economic support is needed for children or other sexually derived liabilities, a cosigning support group in the family & friends of the bride and groom has already been voluntarily assembled & the innocent need not be taxed. The feminism community is united around having sex outside of marriage with a involuntarily coerced (taxed) support group. Let the patriarchy community pay for its liabilities, & let the feminists pay for theirs! A tyrant has authority without responsibility. A slave has responsibility without authority. Today marriage, as re-defined by the female democratic majority and family court system, makes the man a slave to a tyrant wife, who can divorce him at will, breaking vows, stealing his children, his wealth, and his pride while leaving him with the liabilities of the former union. Most women want to have sex with high status "bad boys" outside of marriage and get innocent men to pay for the consequences(abortions, kids ect.). That's why women, no matter how "meritocratic", should never vote. Meritocracy assumes trust and loyalty, & sadly most women are disloyal. As stated above, most women live longer than most men. Most women vote longer than most men. Most politicians cater to the majority, which is feminine, with female biased policies. This is gynocracy. This is female supremacy. This is cancer, and there is no cure. The strategic political battles were fought and lost more than 100 years ago. Show me a man who takes by force what he wants from a women and I'll show you 100 women who vote to take by force what they want from men. Show me a grave created by patriarchy and I'll show you an entire graveyard created by feminism/communism. "Any society that negates the role of the father in the voluntarily marriage contract from decent civilization building men and replaces it with a involuntary centralized welfare state will not remain civilized for long."
@mickey7411 Hopefully You'll never have to break out of that peace time normalcy bias bubble. In the mean time You can choose to read what happened to the good people of a once great city called Merv. Bye. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv
I really wish the academics would stop doing this. No matter how accurate an academic is and many of them are including this one, but that is not the point! There is no value in educating people if there is no concrete strategy offered to people on how to build solidarity among all the divided people and their movements. I reckon these teachings to be like sermons on a Sunday church. People come to listen and learn and then go home while the rich practice solidarity among themselves everyday and eveyry hour and every battle people try to fight against them they lose. Enough already!
I think she's gotten harsher and more extreme with age. Lotsa age..... Her (previously) reasonable and "conversationalist" manner has been subsumed by anger and bile. She's always been a scorn against women's empowerment, abortion, and an anti-sex advocate (without the Jesus - which is why she still gets gigs, btw) - but she's a whole new level of bonkers with this. There are indeed 3rd rail problems with race and education here in the USA - and let's face it - black people have a bum deal here. There are various solutions to this worth talking about - but probably not with somebody driven by rage, Heather my dear. Her push back against affirmative action smells of personal grudge. respectfully, D.A. (fellow J.D., lawyer) (liberal) NYC.
Nope. Education for lower classes in every society on the planet is about 90 years old. One can not blame anyone but themselves living in a rich and free society.
As a transhuman (father Martian, mother Venusian), non-hexadecimal being who identifies as Boppo the Clown, I think it deplorable that the privileged classes (all of you) don't find me funny.
"Russia's errors (Communism) will spread throughout the world." - Warned Mary, the Mother of Jesus, when she appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917! Goggle it!
I hate MacDonald. There is another issue? I mean, the surface issue is that equality is important or it isn’t. Social justice is needed, or it isn’t. One could argue that since ‘whites’ once owned or kept slaves, that now, blacks (and nonwhites) need to gain revenge for this, and that revenge is ‘social justice’. Necessary or not, the reality is there is extreme social injustice visited upon white men. Again, you could argue equality (or social equality) is important, or that it’s not. The perversion here (and I blame MacDonald too) is reversing the parties, pretending the privileged are the underprivileged and the underprivileged are the privileged. . That’s what all the conditioning (the enforcement and speech codes) are about (making sure, requiring us to invert or reverse reality. How is MacDonald challenging this irreality?
Your comment is completely incoherent, lacking a clear argument. You don't "hate" MacDonald, you are simply lack the cognitive function to fully process her arguments.
@@josefranciscodasilvaeolive674 the comment qualifies as English but is so incoherent I suspect it was auto-generated by a language AI like the GPT2 model by OpenAI.
Arabs were slave trading thousands of years ago. The Egyptian Empire had slaves. The 650 years of the Ottoman Empire had slaves and castrated thousands of men. The biggest problem today is culteral marxism and the constant degrading of the traditional family. No more critical thinking just shutting up people who dont conform to the leftist ideas. Violent demonstrations against speakers who are not left. No platforming. Trigger warnings, safe spaces, micro aggressions. Yuri Bezmenov was warning Western governments about all this in the 80s.
The conceptualization you are using is not shared by MacDonald and I would argue does not best reflect reality. There is no overarching master-slave dialectic. Any inequality that might exist is a data point, not a socially imposed conspiracy. It would be a permissible stance to find that inequality is important. If it is important, MacDonald would certainly argue that they are trying to go about fixing it in the wrong ways, because, among other reasons, they misdiagnose the sources of ongoing inequality.
Very curious if all of this helps contribute to the seeming explosion of “mental illness” issues amongst young people from grade school to the early 20’sb& beyond. When you label someone a “victim”, their self image must suffer immensely.
Ive seen this happen in real time. As an anecdote: I once had an acquaintance pronounce with pride that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ptsd. Never mind that would probably make him a nonfunctional human being but he seemed to be doing fine...
Women should not go to college in their 20s. They should be married, be home making babies. All the Social Justice nonsense on campus is there because women evolved with instincts for compassion, for care of infants. We suppress those instincts, but nature wins in the end. Those instincts just get manipulated and directed by unscrupulous people. How to end this: Encourage women to be married and with children, when nature intended: in their 20s. Change the culture. The science backs me up: By Age 30, 90% of a woman's eggs are dead. By age 40, 98% of her eggs are dead. Sperm is different. It's made new, every day. A man can be a dad when he is old. A woman only is given a few years, by nature, to be a Mom. Women did not evolve to compete for power against men, in their 20s. They evolved to make babies in their 20s. Our culture is bullshit.
One thing about women that always drives me nuts, as a man, is their emotionality. Compared to men, a lot more women get emotionally worked up about a lot of things. You see this a lot among SJW...getting emotionally worked up about "social justice" "fairness" and protecting the vulnerable. Why are women like that? In a word: Evolution My guess has always been that women's bodies evolved to appeal to men, but much about women did not evolve to appeal to men, it evolved to take care of infants. We humans would not still be here, if that were not true. Our survival depended on females keeping infants alive, during evolution. So I think much of women's physiology evolved for infant care. Women have strong instincts to care for the vulnerable, because that's what they were doing, for the past 200,000 years. This is obviously strongly related to the concepts of "social justice" and "fairness", which are all about protecting the vulnerable. So I don't see the SJWs as bad people. They are just women who evolved to have children, bond with those children, protect their children. They now live in a culture where women are encouraged to economically compete with men, to delay child birth often till they are 30 years old. This social organization of ours, based on feminism, starkly contrast and is at odds with women's evolutionary instincts. Feminist Carol Gilligan and Martin Kolhberg did a science paper on the stages of moral development in humans. They found an odd thing: Women and men had different levels of moral development. They divided up moral development into 5 stages, with stage 3 being the middle stage. This stage 3 was centered around emotion based morality. It turns out, women usually stall out at stage 3 and have a very strong preference for emotion based morality....compared to men. Why is that? Evolution, obviously. As women evolved to protect the young and vulnerable...babies...this involved being sensitive to the subtle emotional cues that babies gave off. Women who played this game well, who were very emotionally tuned in to nuance and emotional distress in infants, the children of those women survived. So SJWs are simply normal women whose evolutionary instincts are being thwarted by a sick feminist society that tells them not to have children. Women's emotional hardware, their emotionality is a good thing. It kept us alive. Trouble is, in the modern age, we tell those women not to have babies. Again with nature, by the time a woman is 30......90% of her eggs are dead. And what are we doing, with our culture? Contradicting the rules of evolution. No wonder women at university are so screwed up.
What about when you deem someone an "oppressor" because of his gender and skin color? What about when you disregard all the other components of his life. There is no defense, no safe space, no consideration for the officially recognized "oppressors".
@@TimBitts649 Yang, who is running for president, is in favor of a universal basic income to compensate for jobs lost to robots etc. I have thought about giving a check to every family that is having a kid to help keep families together. In other words, the family wouldn't get the money unless they were hitched.
In the talk (near the beginning), Heather MacDonald castigates the excesses of the left but also those on the right who elevate Donald Trump to the status of a 'truth speaker'. However, it would be interesting to hear how she makes the distinction between herself and her intellectual position on the one hand and the people on the right whom she criticized but nevertheless support and celebrate her.
What a brilliant, constructed and well-spoken person. I didn't knew her beforehand, she somehow looks like a femal counterpart of Jordan Peterson if I may say. Fighting against the darkness is a never ending story, we need beacons like these to guide people, especially the younger generation.
We'll, I'm sorta too, so at 55 perhaps I have a bit of a leg up?! And I am actually writing a manuscript on the origins of political correctness, so that may impress her too! In all seriousness, I agree that smart and morally courageous women are VERY attractive. I once had exactly the same reaction to a very logical but brief video on the necessity of freedom of speech by law professor and then head of the ACLU Nadine Strossen.
You have hit the nail on the head, Up. Critical Theory is exactly where this junk is coming from and you are correct in saying they don't accept reason. They see all rational argumentation as mere claptrap to rationalize one's "privilege."
Isn't there an opening for a schools that promotes good-faith, serious, independent learning? Maybe with a very, very strong Law School. Give kids a real option.
Weber, as I understand the quote, is rather incorrect because he falsely presumes the existence of the notorious fact-value dichotomy. Not only is the matter under investigation selected based on what is already taken to be valuable, but more broadly, what is valuable is a matter of fact. Sadly, even so-called conservatives have embraced this dichotomy because what passes for conservatism today is heavily liberal in the philosophical sense. Talk of "conservative values" or "American values" already betrays an "ideologicalization" of values. So while we may disagree about the value of things, this view presumes that we acknowledge the value of things as real and not merely some mental projection. Furthermore, neutrality is a tricky concept. What exactly is neutrality? Either something is true, or it isn't. We may disagree about what is true, but there is no neutral given that somehow escapes human judgement. Of course, we have a tradition and humans in general are bound to agree on a large number of things. Summa summarum, I think sanity can be found in a natural law theory of ethics. This view implicitly would place human nature and sex differences and so on back into the discussion. The idea of justice would have a grounding in reality instead of mere ideological assertion. An appreciation of tradition as the memory of a civilization, a rich treasure trove of things to consider, an opportunity to learn instead of a dictum or command, should also be taught.
