Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Professor David Gelernter

Gelernter On Fire

Students today are so ignorant that it’s hard to accept how ignorant they are. It’s hard to grasp that [the student] you’re talking to, who is bright, articulate, interested, doesn’t know who Beethoven was. Looking back at the history of the 20th Century [he] just sees a fog. Has [only] the vaguest idea of who Winston Churchill was or why he mattered. No image of Teddy Roosevelt. We have failed [them].”
Yet these are the bulk of the SJWs who know everything, especially that they "know everything" and can dictate to the rest of us.

What they actually "know" is not fact, it is a worldview narrative. Gelernter on self-loathing as a worldview:
"Once upon a time we thought of appeasement as a particular approach to Hitler. We have long since come to see that it is a Weltanschauung, an entire philosophical worldview that teaches the blood-guilt of Western man, the moral bankruptcy of the West, and the outrageousness of Western civilization’s attempting to impose its values on anyone else. World War II and its aftermath clouded the issue, but self-hatred has long since reestablished itself as a dominant force in Europe and (less often and not yet decisively) the United States. It was a British idea originally; it was enthusiastically taken up by the French. Today (like so many other British ideas) it is believed more fervently in continental Europe than anywhere else.”"
From Glenn Reynolds:
"Our ruling class is self-loathing, which makes sense because it is loathsome. Alas, it transfers that feeling to the countries it rules. Few countries thrive when ruled by those who despise them."
[All emphasis added]

5 comments:

Robert Coble said...

Winston Churchill?

Wasn't he some old WHITE guy made famous in some right-wing nut book named 1984, written by George Jefferson for MoveInOn.Up? Wasn't he a metaphor for the separation of the racist Church and the Congressional Hill?

Or, maybe he was that fictional Indian (feather, not dot) professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder who was nicknamed "Ward" Churchill because he won an "a-ward" for Best Actor Pretending to be Indian while actually being 100% WHITE? I think he and Elizabeth Warren had a "thing" going for a while.

Oh heck, who cares: it was covered somewhere in one of my Queer Studies classes.

This is NOT the hill I want to die on today.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,
I am curious to know where you draw the line between a 'bad SJW' and a 'good SJW'? Because surely you agree that there is such a thing as someone fighting for good social justice causes obviously... or perhaps the label is not to be used in that case? For example, if we were to live under an Atheistic tyrant who tries to shut down all places of worship, you and I would be on the same side of the issue: I would fight for the rights of people to practice their religion, even if I don't do it myself. In this case, any "SJW" trying to fight that tyrant and give people the ability to worship would be good "warriors", no?

Hi Robert,
When you say "Indian (feather, not dot)" that's for comedic effect, on purpose, I hope...? I had only heard that expression the other way around, dot, not feather, and I think you used it yourself in a comment thread recently. But it's kind of weird to use it as 'feather, not dot' because it's just wrong, since these people are not 'Indians' at all obviously... anyway, still kind of funny but maybe not the way you wanted it to be ;)

Robert Coble said...

Yes, Hugo, the whole thing was intended to be comedic in a very sarcastic vein.

As for the question of using "Indian" to refer to Native Americans: I'm not into the politically correctness issues regarding renaming everything so as not to offend or to "trigger" somebody's indelicate sensibilities. I'm not concerned with renaming the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians (Oh my goodness! Those football players are not "Indians" at all!) or anything else so that (generally) WHITE people can feel good about themselves for being politically correct, going out of their way to be as inoffensive and invisible as possible in the public square, apologizing profusely for their historical sins of ommission and commission and every other sin in the history of the world. If you are Native American or Indian (dot, not feather), no offense was intended to you or anyone who self-identifies as such, including the esteemed Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren, who are as WHITE as white can be.

Please note the regardless of which direction it is used, it is being used to merely distinguish between those of Indian (Indian sub-continent) and those of Native American (American subcontinent) descent in a colloquial way, not in a derogatory way. That you find it offensive in the one case and not in the other is irrational, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Either you should be horribly offended by BOTH or not offended by either. That you are offended by something with no connotation or evident intention to offend is not my problem. I'm sorry for you, but you'll just have to deal with it as it is.

Stan said...

Hugo Pelland,
I will answer your question on social justice in a full article. It expanded well beyond the capacity of comment boxes. It is a good question, and it triggered a desire to flesh out what are the defining features of "Social Justice", and the SJWs.

It's not quite ready yet, but will be soon. Thanks for the question.

Hugo Pelland said...

Robert, I get it, but you should also not forget that there is a difference between offended, and thinking 'omg I can't believe he just said that'. And I am not someone who gets offended easily, if at all. So great to know it was just to be comedic :)

Thanks Stan for the long response, I'll get to it later!