So he starts out with an idea of immigrants: "Lets spend all our money, hitchhike, ride freight trains, and walk for thousands of miles all for a chance to be kicked out the the U.S. along with our kids!" That definitely sounds like a plan that thousands of asylum-seekers and refugees are doing just to make Trump look weak. Yep. Flawless logic.
Then moves on to suggest that brutality and ethnic cleansing were the only way for the Manifest Destiny to be realized, and he waxes poetic about how everyone is a pussy now.
sigh. Old Uncle Pat never fails to amaze me.
But throughout the article he commits the all-too-common sin of mixing up illegal immigration with people seeking asylum.
Economic issues in Central and South America started before the Monroe Doctrine and only got worse as multinational companies with U.S. backing took over much of the trade/labor. Then throw in several countries stuck in decades-long civil wars (that various U.S. agencies may-or-may-not have had a hand in) and many urban areas run by gangs. All of that, and we wonder why people are willing to risk coming to the border, standing on our doorstep for a chance to be reviewed for asylum?
Truth is harsh, and history is an unpleasant subject. Most wars have been fought over land. If you want to keep land, you must be willing, and able, to defend it.
Meh. Skimmed through it but didn't see anything worth thinking about.
I mean, it's basically "In defense of ruthlessness". If you agree with Buchanan that acting ruthless towards immigrants is justified but you're uncomfortable with actually doing it, maybe that article helps you sleep at night. But if you don't already agree with his conclusions, nothing in there is meant for you.
Once in 7th grade as a required topic. ("government" course, which I understand took the place of "Civics")
I believe the other times it was covered for me was technically electives, unless 20+ years is hurting my memory. (Which it probably is). I don't think American History went in-depth on the bill of rights, although they did broad strokes.
The first amendment is mentioned in the press frequently. You'd think that just about all Americans would at least get freedom of speech, press, and religion, but apparently not.
I'm a big fan of the Sokal hoax, but this is a pretty grim imitation.
I mean, if there's a proper methodology - like you submit the same SciGen article to 30 journals and see who bites - then great, those are interesting results. But as near as I can figure, this crew submitted a bunch of absurd papers, all of them apparently got rejected (this to me was the surprising bit), and then they spent ten months tweaking them to be more believable and submitting to less prestigious journals. And many wound up getting accepted. No shit!
Verdict: "hey look, a painting by a toddler won an abstract art contest!" Meh.
Um... there are some conflicting sliders on there.
Since I'm assuming this is only up as an inside joke for the domain owner, I'll just say that thank goodness I'm a devout Jewish, devout Muslim, non-Christian female transgender disabled gay poor person with no education that learned English as a second language in the foreign country I was born in. I scored 100%!
Intersectionality is one of those big mushy social science terms with more definitions than proponents. Lately it's more of a name for a faction than anything else.
@Bill said:
modern discrimination theory, which is insane.
Stop thinking factionally. That's like saying postmodernism is insane, it doesn't mean anything specific enough to warrant belief.
I'd call it more analogous to post-modernism or the like - it's a chunk of real estate in the social sciences where academics write papers, but it's not tightly coupled to any single thesis.
At its core, intersectionalism seems to boil down to the notion that different forms of bias or discrimination combine into more than the sum of their parts, and should therefore be analyzed differently, or somesuch. Which is clearly insane. Pat Buchanan probably said so.
Comments
Don’t see your must-have feature? We keep Vanilla nice and simple by default. Use addons to get the special sauce your community needs.
Not sure which addons to enable? Our favorites are Button Bar and Tagging. They’re almost always a great start.
This "System" person is pretty clever...
+1
Read this and immediately thought of the break-in that Eod had in one of his previous residences.
(from a Cracked article about postal workers)
Has the West the Will to Survive?
So he starts out with an idea of immigrants: "Lets spend all our money, hitchhike, ride freight trains, and walk for thousands of miles all for a chance to be kicked out the the U.S. along with our kids!" That definitely sounds like a plan that thousands of asylum-seekers and refugees are doing just to make Trump look weak. Yep. Flawless logic.
Then moves on to suggest that brutality and ethnic cleansing were the only way for the Manifest Destiny to be realized, and he waxes poetic about how everyone is a pussy now.
sigh. Old Uncle Pat never fails to amaze me.
But throughout the article he commits the all-too-common sin of mixing up illegal immigration with people seeking asylum.
Economic issues in Central and South America started before the Monroe Doctrine and only got worse as multinational companies with U.S. backing took over much of the trade/labor. Then throw in several countries stuck in decades-long civil wars (that various U.S. agencies may-or-may-not have had a hand in) and many urban areas run by gangs. All of that, and we wonder why people are willing to risk coming to the border, standing on our doorstep for a chance to be reviewed for asylum?
You can have a heart AND be strong.
At the moment we're doing neither.
Truth is harsh, and history is an unpleasant subject. Most wars have been fought over land. If you want to keep land, you must be willing, and able, to defend it.
Meh. Skimmed through it but didn't see anything worth thinking about.
I mean, it's basically "In defense of ruthlessness". If you agree with Buchanan that acting ruthless towards immigrants is justified but you're uncomfortable with actually doing it, maybe that article helps you sleep at night. But if you don't already agree with his conclusions, nothing in there is meant for you.
Invading countries are different than refugees.
Coups are different than asylum-seekers.
Dissidents are different than immigrants.
I believe we have a problem with two out of six of those things I mentioned. Can you guess which two?
Survey Shows Shocking Percentage of Americans Are Unable to Name a Single First Amendment Right -- I remembered all five.
I've never been surprised by the depths of ignorance among the American population.
I'm pretty sure I could come up with at least one, and I'm not American... Didn't they teach this stuff in school?
Repeatedly.
Once in 7th grade as a required topic. ("government" course, which I understand took the place of "Civics")
I believe the other times it was covered for me was technically electives, unless 20+ years is hurting my memory. (Which it probably is). I don't think American History went in-depth on the bill of rights, although they did broad strokes.
The first amendment is mentioned in the press frequently. You'd think that just about all Americans would at least get freedom of speech, press, and religion, but apparently not.
So, do you believe it is prehistoric porn or a sex education tool?
Ain Sakhri lovers figurine
Also, Wikipedia
Why can't it be both?
(I can't get any of the photos to display or the one video to play, so I'll just make a smartass comment based on the two paragraphs I read).
The Grievance Studies Scandal: Five Academics Respond
Sailer: Sokal Hoax of 2018
Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship
I'm a big fan of the Sokal hoax, but this is a pretty grim imitation.
I mean, if there's a proper methodology - like you submit the same SciGen article to 30 journals and see who bites - then great, those are interesting results. But as near as I can figure, this crew submitted a bunch of absurd papers, all of them apparently got rejected (this to me was the surprising bit), and then they spent ten months tweaking them to be more believable and submitting to less prestigious journals. And many wound up getting accepted. No shit!
Verdict: "hey look, a painting by a toddler won an abstract art contest!" Meh.
I have done this. I also used to do it with actual reference books before the internet existed. Good times.
They just ain’t making neo-Nazis like they used to
Intersectionality Score Calculator
I don't get this.
Um... there are some conflicting sliders on there.
Since I'm assuming this is only up as an inside joke for the domain owner, I'll just say that thank goodness I'm a devout Jewish, devout Muslim, non-Christian female transgender disabled gay poor person with no education that learned English as a second language in the foreign country I was born in. I scored 100%!
Finally... what?
It's a joke making fun of modern discrimination theory, which is insane.
What's discrimination theory
Intersectionality is one of those big mushy social science terms with more definitions than proponents. Lately it's more of a name for a faction than anything else.
Stop thinking factionally. That's like saying postmodernism is insane, it doesn't mean anything specific enough to warrant belief.
It has influence at universities.
So does postmodernism; my point stands.
So its one of those things that people like to think is a bigger movement than it actually is?
College kids love Ayn Rand too, but most of them get over it before they hit 30. The rest turn into Rand Paul, Reince Priebus, and Paul Ryan.
I'd call it more analogous to post-modernism or the like - it's a chunk of real estate in the social sciences where academics write papers, but it's not tightly coupled to any single thesis.
At its core, intersectionalism seems to boil down to the notion that different forms of bias or discrimination combine into more than the sum of their parts, and should therefore be analyzed differently, or somesuch. Which is clearly insane. Pat Buchanan probably said so.