The Coddling Of The American Mind (Trigger Warning Article In The Atlantic...)

I don't really know what to make of any side of this (except that Khan should have never faced potential disciplinary action over a FB post) but I feel like it might relate to Mordy's point: https://globalnews.ca/news/3833413/dalhousie-student-slams-anti-canadian-motion/

Afaict, it seems to be pretty much taken as a given with many on the Canadian activist left at this point that any celebration of Canada or its founders is more or less a celebration of genocide.

I am legitimately offended by the comment at the beginning of that article about Reed College where a student claims that a saxophone player painted gold is performing blackface.

OTOH it's Reed so odds are all of these students are so high that they don't know what they're saying.

I wondered if that was the case, yeah.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k_3ruV9munQ/UaufkFv3QRI/AAAAAAAACpw/BbFX8Q02Q7s/s1600/reedlogo.jpg

My main memory of my one visit to Reed is some engineering students showing off the bong they made out of a shop-vac.

lol that is perfect

xpost
trivializing the tools of the domestic worker
nagl

it was the 90s; it was trivialize the tools of the domestic worker or go home

at this stage it seems like things are only going to get worse in this regard (abolishing thanksgiving, or taking down statues of the founding fathers seem like obvious next steps)

I doubt it -- I mean, I don't doubt there will be a handful of examples of this (there are already!) but I doubt it will be, as people say, "a thing"

or that these are a small amount of activists making a lot of noise w/ little real impact on the country.

This is what I think, my evidence being that I work on an extremely liberal college campus where all of this stuff is completely invisible/irrelevant to 95% of our students. You'll notice that the same incidents (Charles Murray at Middlebury, the biology guy at Evergreen, and now lately this stuff at Reed) are trotted out again and again and again and it's not because those are the most important and representative college campuses that are fair stand-ins for higher ed as a whole (ha!) it's because there are just not that many examples but scoldy op-eds must be written. If you want to know what lefty activists on campus are spending their time doing, by and large it's registering people to vote, making sure college students have required ID in states that have recently imposed requirements, trying to get campuses to divest from oil/gun/tobacco companies, etc., not putting a KKK hood on the statue of Lincoln on the quad or trying to get the Shakespeare class canceled.

student who said 'emotional theater' otm

lol "taking down statues of the founding fathers" I heaven forfend, what a nightmarish picture you paint of our dystopian future

Been wondering why the masochistic Midwich Cuckoos fantasy is so popular. I know people from different viewpoints want to believe the worst, but why?

I say this as someone who often suspects people are downplaying liberal/left problems.

i think conservatives have observed that fads in the academy often become policy a few decades (or less) down the line - or at least they've observed this with social issues, economic ones a little trickier?

college students grow out of the bonfire of the vanities mindset

They probably do, they get jobs and stuff, but there's always more college students to grow into it. Why shouldn't they?

heaven forfend, what a nightmarish picture you paint of our dystopian future

fwiw tho i think doing so would be a mistake (eroding shared constitutive culture) i don't feel particularly strongly about it. i do think it'll cause a major reaction. v likely that removing the statues is value neutral but the response is dystopian.

xp weak sub-institutional-level memory

It's the reluctance to find out what's really going on that puzzles me. In a lot of these articles they don't interview the students to find out what they want. It's like they really really want there to be kids who will destroy everything they believe in.

i've spent my whole life hearing about crazed leftists warring on christmas, secretly weaving the homosexual agenda into school curricula etc. and as with things like gay rights, there have usually been ostensible liberals ready to assert that things are moving too fast (or "it's not the right time, there's an election coming in three years" ) and that the backlash will be so bad it means that the thing is not worth it. imo the probability of right-wing exploitation of these things as wedge issues is not in and of itself an argument against pursuing them. especially in a world where the right wing is going to exploit literally anything that you do as a wedge issue. or things that haven't even taken place (e.g. pizzagate).

of course you can, separately, argue that you think the changes/ideas themselves are bad and not what you would like to see happen! but personally i think it is best to table the "the other side will use this against you" angle since it obscures your own position and would be true of anything.

you're right that it's a cheap argument. i gave a more serious one in the first half of that post.

aka civic culture is what is holding this country together and intentionally damaging it further will not lead to results that are good for anyone

isn't that what steve bannon is saying?

i think steve bannon wants to destroy the government and start a civil war

ok, well, the specific hypothetical which i found laughable was the implication that communities deciding to take down founding-father statues would be a turn for the worse. you can conflate that with "intentionally damaging civic culture" but i don't buy that at all, it seems like a tendentious elision. one pictures young hothead radicals, eager to find a way to damage civic culture, picking up a broken brick of society from the gutter and hurling it at a statue of thomas jefferson.

if that's not what you're going for, please feel free to correct me but it just sounds like you're buying into or inadvertently propagating the right-wing stereotype/fantasy you claim to want to shield us against. i for one can think of lots of reasons to get rid of statues that in my view are about an *affirmation* of civic culture. certainly the removal of confederate monuments reflects that, no? not much "civic" about devoting ostensibly shared resources to erecting and maintaining those, since their purpose is to let certain populations know who's boss. taking them down can be a real corner-turning or eye-opening moment - "yknow it never occurred to me what that would look like to somebody descended from slaves" etc. if a community came to the conclusion that jefferson is in the same boat, sounds like a healthy civic discussion to me.

Sometimes think there might be value in keeping around statues of horrible people as some sort of reminder but I'm not committed to it.

I think that the "promissory note" idea is the only thing that allows us to maintain social fabric while progressing ethically. But cutting off that note at the root by disowning the entire independence narrative would be v difficult to recover from.

We're a multicultural country. We don't have the luxury of appealing to other commonalities to create trust and allow society to function. We have this contractual nation idea that this nation was founded for ideals to which we still subscribe. I think you're imagining that some kind of ad hoc new nationality would come to replace the founder mythology. That seems a little optimistic. It seems more likely that we'll just become more fractured without shared historical touch points.

there's a lot of leaps there and i can't really follow them all. but really there are so many ways to engage with the promissory note/perpetual improvement narrative than by venerating these specific guys. for example, you might choose to make another step towards progress by... taking down their statues. depending what values are shared in that community that might feel very affirmative.

enshrining the statues as sacrosanct, as if touching them is a deliberate and negative assault against any possible commonality and community, feels bizarre to me. monuments come and go. figures who were once universally-known national heroes become obscure. we swapped eisenhower for susan b anthony on the dollar coin and we're hopefully about to see tubman replace jackson. the greek revival museum burns down and gets replaced with a neogothic one (or neoclassical or art deco or international-style depending when we're talking), the vietnam memorial becomes a more important site to visit in washington than the jefferson memorial. those things happen sometimes with active pushing for a realignment and sometimes it just happens but in neither case is society atomized and the constitution vaporized.

washington and jefferson are a lot more important to our national mythos than eisenhower or even jackson. more importantly they're metonymic for the documents that enshrine those shared values. they're not so easily extractible imo.

also i think i'm much more pessimistic about the current level of atomization/individualism than you are.

well, in turn, i'm a lot more skeptical than you are about the values attached to these characters! who am i to tell someone who associates jefferson and washington and the constitution mainly with its force as a conservative document designed to retain and standardize injustice (specifically the enslavement from which both men drew all their wealth, as you know of course) that they're wrong and that taking action based on that point of view goes against the promissory note / american-experiment potential of the good bits of the constitution?

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/01/the-problem-with-problematic/

The accusation that “society tends to favor privileged voices” is, according to some, not only a political analysis but an economic one. “The fear,” one literary agent told me, “is that if a publisher takes on a book written by a successful white male writer about a disabled Native American lesbian, a real disabled Native American lesbian might have trouble placing a book about the same subject at the same house; the publisher already has one.” What this suggests is that books are being categorized—and judged—less on their literary merits than on the identity of their authors.

What’s distressing is the frequency—and the unexamined authority—with which the words “experience” and “lived experience” define who is qualified to write or even to weigh in on a book. If it’s not your “lived experience,” you’re not writing in “your own voice.” It doesn’t suggest much faith in the power of the imagination—our ability to envision what it might be like to belong to another group, another gender, to live in another historical era. To take the argument to its illogical extreme, how can one write a historical novel if one has no “lived experience” of that period?

Time machines obv

We'd love to publish your novel about the fall of Rome but there are some Barbarian authors with lived experience of the subject and we need to listen to them

While we wait for this utopia to materialize, let's ask the Visigoths' descendants. Since Alaric was probably born in present-day Romania, feel free to hire me as your sensitivity reader.

I don't really see the generation that's filled with Hamilton fever tearing down too many statues of founding fathers tbh.

They'll take a statue of Madison, turn it around, topple it over, and shoe him where the shoe fits.

http://induecourse.ca/affirmative-action-for-conservative-academics/

Oh no

Jonathan Haidt on the two threats to liberal democracy: the right wing in politics, and the left wing on campus. https://t.co/WrKa1Q60Pl

— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) December 20, 2017

https://www.city-journal.org/html/age-outrage-15608.html

Haidt’s thing really does begin like this:

What is happening to our country, and our universities? It sometimes seems that everything is coming apart. To understand why, I have found it helpful to think about an idea from cosmology called “the fine-tuned universe.” There are around 20 fundamental constants in physics—things like the speed of light, Newton’s gravitational constant, and the charge of an electron. In the weird world of cosmology, these are constants throughout our universe, but it is thought that some of them could be set to different values in other universes. As physicists have begun to understand our universe, they have noticed that many of these physical constants seem to be set just right to allow matter to condense and life to get started.

For a few of these constants, if they were just one or two percent higher or lower, matter would have never condensed after the big bang. There would have been no stars, no planets, no life. As Stephen Hawking put it, “the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Some have suggested that this fine-tuning might be evidence for the existence of God. This would be a deist conception of God, of the sort that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and most of the Founding Fathers believed in: a God who set up the universe like a giant clock, with exactly the right springs and gears, and then set it in motion. I myself am not taking fine-tuning as evidence of God. I’m simply using it as a way to open this lecture. I want to lift your attention up into the cosmos and put you into a mindset that is awestruck at our improbability. And if I have succeeded in doing that, then I’d like you to take that same mindset and apply it to the existence of our improbable country.

oh man I'm in the middle of grading papers right now and that kind of rambling off topic speculative introduction is rampant. c+, blatant filler, outline is not under control.

(clearly the only explanation is that my students are all coddled leftists)

read the thread title as meaning (trigger warning: article in the atlantic)

it's a lecture guys. ppl do all kinds of rambling in lectures to keep audiences attention - they tell jokes, stories, etc. i know you disagree with his arguments but try to focus on them and not on the meaningless intro he used to discuss them.

sorry chief

lol sure okay. "try to focus on the author's argument, and not the way the author advances a position through deliberate choices in framing and delivering their thoughts." good advice i'll be sure to tell my students that.

also it's not a lecture. it's an essay published on the internet. which announces upfront that it's edited from a lecture. which means you don't have to keep "all kinds of rambling" which btw is not exactly a sign of a great lecturer anyway in my book. what we actually have here is not a spellbinding rhetorical flourish to keep an audience engaged, but three paragraphs of a strained and sloppy analogy to physics in order to introduce the idea of... now wait for it because this is an unfamiliar concept for most of you.... "fine-tuning." what will those scientists come up with next?

Imagine three kids making a human chain with their arms, and one kid has his free hand wrapped around a pole. The kids start running around in a circle, around the pole, faster and faster. The centrifugal force increases. That’s the force pulling outward as the human centrifuge speeds up. But at the same time, the kids strengthen their grip. That’s the centripetal force, pulling them inward along the chain of their arms. Eventually the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force and their hands slip. The chain breaks. This, I believe, is what is happening to our country.

since you asked.

demonstrating still further his excellent grasp of physics

btw in addition to the points you might expect if you've spoken to a boomer in the past decade (the kids don't love america; where have you gone walter cronkite; war is great and unifying but "vietnam was different" for some reason we don't have time to go into) that essay also manages to slip in a blandly euphemized version of a real classic:

we didn’t manage the healing process well in the Reconstruction era

now of course, this is ambiguous! he doesn't actually say reconstruction was too harsh. maybe he means something else; maybe he means the opposite! it would be cool to know, because iirc the civil war and its aftermath is an important time in american history and anyone putting forth a big theory about why the country's gone where it's gone should probably be able to tell you whether they think reconstruction was too harsh or not. no time here, tho; gotta talk about tetherball. i wonder why the whole essay is on this weightless, empty level, tersely citing exceptions to its rules without explaining them and implying that something was wrong w reconstruction without specifying what, all while finding the time to go into multigraf detail on its pompous technical metaphors. i hope it is just because the guy does not know a whole lot.

It has always been wrong to bet against America, and it is probably wrong to do so now. My libertarian friends constantly remind me that people are resourceful; when problems get more severe, people get more inventive, and that might be happening to us right now.

maybe!

only time, time itself, will tell