A. The Statistician to the Stars makes the point: In our society, the use of force is reserved to those who govern
What do we call those people in a society who are licensed or allowed to use violence?
No hints this time. We call these the people in charge.
So, must we assume that hooded thugs and the college administration that effectively encourages them are the people in charge? If you find yourself in Berkeley, you’d better.
B. Mike Flynn, among other interesting things, spells out some of the difficulties in attempting to argue with post post moderns. It’s hard, when the sneer and eye-role have replaced premises and logical deductions as the foundation of higher reasoning – a perfectly predictable if unintended consequence of Hegel’s pitching enlightenment over logic as the one true path (or, at least, the express lane) to Knowledge. Which is how you end up with gender theorists, say, having greater standing in the academy than, say, chemists.
Well worth reading, and also following the links, which I will not duplicate here. Also, I think Mr. Flynn wins the internet for a day with:
Democrats have not been this riled up since the Republicans took their slaves away.
C. And here is Orvan Ox talking about modern name calling on Sarah Hoyt’s blog, and how it inures one to a certain manipulative shaming after a while. My comment:
The real threat here is that constantly being slurred does tend to make one hate the slurrer. The more inappropriate and stupid, the better – I mean, the more it tends toward making one dislike the name-caller.
Thus, while the name-calling will increase immunity among some, it may actually create that which it incorrectly names. If I wanted, for some reason, society to be racist and misogynist, continually calling it that might tend to make it so.
This would be merely a crazy paranoid idea. Then you read a little Gramsci and Alinsky, and the idea that something so convoluted and sick could be attempted starts to seem almost inevitable.