College students cannot explain why a 5’9″ white guy isn’t a 6’5″ Chinese woman.
Remember, they’re putting themselves into tens of thousands of dollars of non-dischargeable debt for this sort of “education.”
39 thoughts on “The Wages Of “Critical Theory””
Comments are closed.
College students cannot explain why a 5’9″ white guy isn’t a 6’5″ Chinese woman.
That’s a little unfair, they weren’t asked to explain why he wasn’t a 6’5″ Chinese woman, it was more like: ‘If I want to believe I’m 6’5″ or Chinese or 7 yrs old’ would you argue with me? Most of them responded with something that amounted to: ‘well if you want to believe that, that’s your business’.
well if you want to believe that, that’s your business
The others have no business on a college campus.
Well, to be fair, why should they care what some other person wants to believe about themselves in that area?
They’re not that person’s psychotherapist.
I don’t care if a 5’9″ white guy thinks he’s a 6’5″ Chinese woman, because he ain’t hurting anyone else by believing it.
Two things.
First, it used to be true that it was nobody’s business, but government has now made business to conform to this belief. If you run a public pool, and you don’t want a person with a penis entering the ladies locker room during kindergarten swim lessons; you can be fined for stopping them if they claim to be a 6’5″ Chinese woman. Every business in Charlotte was forced to accept this without it coming to a vote.
Second, business looks for college graduates who can discern differences and make decisions based on those differences. I can hire anybody off the street and train them to do mundane tasks. I seek college grads who can make the right decisions when exceptions are needed. These college students are refusing to acknowledge any difference. These are not future business leaders.
The wise decision is to obey the government, averting the possible ruin of the firm, as those Oregon bakers are learning the hard way.
why should they care what some other person wants to believe about themselves in that area?
Because you have to believe it too or be cast out from society.
I always thought we had separation of church and state but some people refuse to admit their magical thinking is a religious ideology.
At this rate, college education will be free because it will be useless. Unfortunately, big government will always find work for them in the bureaucracy until it’s time for the camps.
And if someone would have proved it they would not have taped it because it would not have sold the narrative they were trying to sell.
I bet they would have showed such a thing because the mental gymnastics needed to get to that point would have been entertaining and perfectly illustrated the absurdity of the situation.
“Sure, pal, whatever you say. No need to get excited. I’ll just be moving along, now. It’s OK, you just stay here.”
would you argue with me?
So instead of making an argument (something you would expect college would teach them how to do) these people are being taught to be good little voters/citizens. So when their vote doesn’t count (because they lost delegates to a better ground game) there’s no fight left in them and they simply accept the outcome?
Maybe they feel as I often do: You can’t argue with stupid, or as Twain put it: ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’
“So if I wanted to attend a first grade class, what would Andrew think of that?”
Ummm, I don’t want to argue with stupid, so go ahead. Whatever floats your boat. I guess we’ll deal with any misconduct of the pedophilic nature if or when it comes up.
Andrew, the degree to which you morally tower over us all is astounding. And you do it with no lines or boundaries. What an example you set.
“So if I wanted to attend a first grade class, what would Andrew think of that?”
If you came up to me in the street, you’d get something along the lines of Pantagruel’s suggestion:
“Sure, pal, whatever you say. No need to get excited. I’ll just be moving along, now. It’s OK, you just stay here.”
If it’s my job to enroll people in first grade I’d have to follow the rules.
If I get to make the rules it would be that adults attend adult classes.
Do you have any other fantasies you’d like to project?
What you seem to miss with stupidity is that these college students are supporting those making rules that says not only race shouldn’t be a factor of who attends first grade, but so shouldn’t age or gender. Now I’m fine with gender as well, but in order to avoid another “ism”, ageism is also become something to be indifferent. Sure, first grade is an exaggeration, but it is far less hyperbole than boycotting a state for blocking a mayor from establishing a law without consent from voters.
If you came up to me in the street
No, the street is dangerous. Please pay attention.
If it’s my job to enroll people in first grade I’d have to follow the rules
Speaking as a projectionist, please elaborate. What are these rules?
What you seem to miss with stupidity is that these college students are supporting those making rules that says not only race shouldn’t be a factor of who attends first grade, but so shouldn’t age or gender.
Well it’s a relief we’ve got you around to tell us what everyone else is thinking, do you communicate with the dead as well as mind reading?
Speaking as a projectionist, please elaborate. What are these rules?
I’ve no idea what the rules are in your country regarding adults enrolling in primary education, and it’s no doubt shocking to you but I’m not going to both to find out what they are.
Possibly you’ll interpret this as my lacking an adequately inquisitive mind, probably a result of some shortcoming in my education.
Yawn.
Very sensible but who determines who is an adult? That is the crux of this. A person’s actual age is immaterial to what age they think they are, or claim they are.
Its the old slippery slope argument but the slope in this case is a toboggan run that thinks its a water slide so everyone must wear swimsuits and not use toboggans.
Ah, Andrew goes for the “I’m ignorant” argument, which is true in his case. I know the local schools were I live have decided to ignore students showing up to classes that are not registered for class. The teachers argue, “why should we turn away people who want to learn?” Putting aside that the school does not have enough room for enrolled students that they need double wides in the parking lot; the school literally has no idea who these extra students really are. They can’t verify their name, age, nationality, and certainly not where they live. Grant it, this is a high school, but if there are rules for enrollment, the teachers are intentionally not following them.
I’ve no idea what the rules are
Well I think most here would agree that instructing Billy and Sally in simple arithmetic might become problematic when there’s a 34 year-old guy sitting next to them insisting she’s 7 years old. But the important thing is teaching non-judgmentalism. So that one’s covered.
Possibly you’ll interpret this as my lacking an adequately inquisitive mind
Andrew, the inquisitiveness (or any other aspect) of your mind is a subject I cannot imagine ever being worthy of exploration.
Maybe they feel as I often do.
Yet here you are making an argument.
I note that Andrew argues with many here, and few, if any, go out of there way to argue with Andrew.
Arguing/discussing points of view on blogs is usually why blog owners allow and encourage comments. If someone says something is really dumb there’s usually an endless string of people lining up to point out why what they’ve said is really dumb.
So what you’re saying is that few, if any are saying what I say is really dumb.
Good to hear.
I’m not surprised that you can’t recognize the logical fallacy of either of your statements. Particularly when they contradict each other.
I wanted him to ask “What if I say I am a Christian Conservative gun owner?”
Perhaps this can be used to trick them into supporting free speech by saying that the “Trump 2016” on the sidewalk isn’t a sign of evil Trump supporters lurking on campus, but proof that chalk is self-actualizing.
The “Chinese” aspect of it is silly. There are lots of people you’d have no hesitancy about describing as white who have Chinese citizenship, particularly since the UK transferred Hong Kong to China. If a white guy (with a microphone and an assistant who is videotaping, no less) walks up to you and says he is Chinese, what you do next depends on the context, but I bet you shouldn’t explain why he is wrong, because he might, in fact, be Chinese.
For example, Jewish-Canadian billionaire Allan Zeman gave up his Canadian citizenship, obtained Chinese citizenship, and is an important figure in Hong Kong’s municipal affairs.
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2013/07/07/allan-zemans-heart-is-in-hong-kong/
A quote from the link: “He has even since said he is a Hong Kong Chinese with a foreign face.”
Another quote: “Having given up his Canada citizenship to become a Chinese citizen, Allan Zeman is today now fully “married” to Hong Kong and indeed also to mainland China itself to which he has full access as a citizen now. When he did so it was obviously not a step to be taken lightly and when he was asked why he did it he said:
“I woke up one day and thought to myself, this is really home,” says Zeman, “I sit on all the boards here, and do business here. But I have no idea, really, what goes on in Canada. I couldn’t even tell you whose government it is. This is my home. I just woke up and thought: I feel very, very local.”
And the gender aspect is silly too, because if someone (with or without a microphone and a film crew) walks up to you and says that they are a woman, the polite thing to do is to do exactly what the college kids did. What would you do? Start an argument?
I’d say that if someone who clearly appeared to be a man walked up to someone and declared themselves a woman, they’d be the one starting the argument.
Well, ok, you’re right about that!
But I still think the college kids behaved appropriately, politely, and intelligently. The kids aren’t being treated fairly in these blog discussions.
The college kids behaved completely inappropriately, with a total lack of inquisitiveness. Notice how none of them asked the questioner why he believed what he stated. Exactly the opposite of what one would expect of someone studying at the post-secondary level.
As for behaving intelligently, no. Robotic does not equate to Intelligent. Had there been a hint of humor or irony displayed there might be some doubt, but that isn’t there either.
And of course the resulting discussion is completely fair. If for no other reason than some of them, we can expect, will be exposed to the video and comments and seriously re-evaluate their conditioning.
One hopeful outcome is folks like Bob, who find this idea of classroom programming at taxpayer expense to be a great progressive enterprise, are reduced to bleating “unfair!”. Weak, intellectually bankrupt and ripe for ridicule. So we’ve got that going for us anyway.
Notice how none of them asked the questioner why he believed what he stated
The one guy did. But they were all pretty much tied up in knots trying to find the right words from the newspeak dictionary.
( I said “Jewish-Canadian” to paint a picture, but of course, as you all know, that’s error-prone as well: there are plenty of people who “look Chinese” but who are also Jewish, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the reason is prosaic– a child from China is adopted by a white Jewish family, and sometimes the reason is historically interesting, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng_Jews )
The “Chinese” aspect of it is silly. There are lots of people you’d have no hesitancy about describing as white who have Chinese citizenship
He didn’t mean Chinese citizenship but rather ethnicity. Pretty sure you know this. The reason why this example was used is because being transracial is now a thing with Democrats.
Have you seen Jupiter Ascending? It is pretty much the future of this line of thinking with otherkin and everything.
Is Chinese an ethnicity any more than English is an ethnicity?
Perhaps the same, or similar anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
The Chinese ethnic identity is a lot more homogenous than English.
The people in the video did not view him as Chinese. Why they didn’t is a question they would have to answer but it is clear what the video was intending and how the subjects of the video took the claim.
The Chinese would argue, yes. Of course there are different ethnic groups within the Chinese ethnicity such as the Han and the Manchu, but they are all Chinese.
I don’t understand why you would ask this question unless you’re just being provocative. Yes, English is an ethnicity. We have English food, English theater, English art, etc. English people don’t like being lumped in with Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. I think you know this.
In fact, outside of the politically correct Western mindset, most other groups are fond of distinguishing their own ethnicity from other ethnic groups.
I think you might be confusing ethnicity with culture.
This is what happens when a man insists Whole Foods believe they wrote Fag on his cake. Someone questioned the man’s belief.