The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Teleology of Triggered Minds


Unless
you are scheduled to appear on a college campus, that is, for example, at
Berkeley, to deliver a culinary-themed lecture on the best way to prepare an egg
and ham quiche, Antifa thugs and
Social Justice Warriors (thugs-in-training) are not likely to appear to riot,
destroy or damage property, and physically assault anyone in protest of your
presence. But then who knows what mildewed nihilism, undigested grunge, and
ideological sewage pass for thought in the minds of “activists” anymore?
Also,
remember that the original “triggered minds” also include Muslim minds, who are
the paramount “victims” of micro-aggressions by Western culture, such as
freedom of speech, imaginative images of Mohammad, hijab-less women and women
in alluring garb, and blasphemous talk about Islam and Allah. Jihadists and Islamic
activists are also nihilists, whether they wear $1,000 suits or jeans and
T-shirts and flash knives or machetes.

The poster boy victims of
micro-aggression:
Triggered Muslims, brothers in
Spirit of Antifa

Heather
McDonald of the Manhattan
Insitute
, in her Wall
Street Journal
article of April, wrote:
Student thuggery
against non-leftist viewpoints is in the news again. Agitators at Claremont
McKenna College, Middlebury College, and the University of California’s
Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses have used threats, brute force and sometimes
criminal violence over the past two months in efforts to prevent Milo
Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter and me
from speaking. As commencement season approaches, expect “traumatized” students
to try to disinvite any remotely conservative speaker, an effort already under
way at Notre Dame with regard to Vice President Mike Pence.
And then there
is Pomana
College
, whose sociology students are demanding the firing of a white professor
who teaches “black communities.” Addressed to the school’s sociology department,
the dean, and the college president, it complained – nay – demanded the immediate firing (or not hiring) of Alice Goffman. The brave
students ended their demand:
(128 names redacted for individual safety
in recognition of the violence inflicted on communities of color by various
publications, namely [and apparently solely] by the Claremont Independent)
(square brackets mine)
Reviewing
her subject of “black communities,” one is at a loss to understand why the
students would object to her Pomana appointment. She is of the Left, as “her
PhD dissertation on the impact of mass incarceration and policing on low-income
African-American urban communities… when she immersed herself in a
disadvantaged neighborhood of Philadelphia with African-American young men who
were subject to a high level of surveillance and police activity….” She is a
product of that bastion of Progressive causes, the University of Wisconsin.
Jonathan
Marks agrees with my assessment of Goffman his Commentary article of April 24th,
New Rule: White Women Should Not
Study Black Communities
.”
Alice Goffman, assistant professor of
sociology at the University of Wisconsin, is a controversial scholar. Her book,
On the Run:
Fugitive Life in an American City
is based on Goffman’s
six year immersion in a black neighborhood in West Philadelphia.
The book was published in 2014 to
wide acclaim. But it soon attracted critics, including the estimable Steven
Lubet
, who thinks
that Goffman embellished her experiences, repeated as fact things she had heard
from her subjects though they were unlikely to have been true, and, most
sensationally, became so caught up in the lives of the people she was writing
about that she could have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder under
Pennsylvania law. Goffman replies here,
and Lubet takes up part of Goffman’s reply here.
Suffice it to say that there is enough to the controversy to make it
unsurprising that when Goffman’s hire as McConnell Visiting Professor of
Sociology at Pomona College was announced, some people were disappointed.
But the “collective of Sociology
students, alumni, and allies at Pomona College” who have stepped forward to
complain in an open
letter
were not disappointed about the kinds of issues Lubet raised. They
seem troubled mainly by the fact that Professor Goffman is a white researcher
who had the effrontery to study a black community. The hire “boasts the
framework that white women can theorize about and profit from Black lives while
giving no room for Black academics to claim scholarship regarding their own
lived experiences.” We are given to understand that one should not boast such a
framework.
Let’s be clear: Goffman is not a
right winger. Cornel West,
who blurbed the book, called it “the best treatment I know of the wretched
underside of neo-liberal capitalist America…”
So, one truly does not know anymore what the
disintegrated, whirligigish minds of contemporary students will object to and
vociferously protest against. Here they object because the subject and the ethnicity
of the professor do not match. The fact that she got her degree from the
University of Wisconsin, is irrelevant. Go figure.
Heather McDonald writes:
Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an
ideological one.
At its center is a worldview that sees Western culture as
endemically racist and sexist. The overriding goal of the educational
establishment is to teach young people within the ever-growing list of official
victim classifications to view themselves as existentially oppressed. One
outcome of that teaching is the forceful silencing of contrarian speech. [Italics
mine]
Offending “rhetoric” frequently
includes the greatest works of Western civilization. In November 2015, a
Columbia sophomore announced on Facebook
that his “health and life” were threatened by a Core Curriculum course taught
by a white professor. The comment thread exploded with sympathetic rage: “The
majority of why?te [sic] students taking [Contemporary Civilization] and on
this campus never have to be consistently aware of their identities as white
ppl while sitting in CC reading racist, patriarchal texts taught by white
professors who most likely are unaware of the various forms of impact that CC
texts have on people of color.”
And most of the
authors of the Core Curriculum are “dead white males.” Automatically all
racists, you see.
Another sophomore fulminated: “Many
of these texts INSPIRED THE RACISM THAT I’M FORCED TO LIVE WITH DAILY, and to
expect, or even suggest, that that doesn’t matter, is [obscenity] belittling,
insulting, and WAY OUT OF [obscenity] LINE.” Those “racist” texts include works
by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Rousseau and Mill.
His
progressive education has embedded misanthropy,
a hatred of men, into his unformed, untested, unexposed mind, in addition to misology, or a hatred or fear of philosophy
or reasoning, or the rational discourse of ideas. His mind will never be tested
by reason, because he has been told that reason is a product of the Enlightenment
(emerging from the Dark Ages, the the Age of Enlightenment
promoted a confidence in reason or intellectual enquiry)
, which was
wholly “racist.” He must “live with the” offending texts daily! Does that mean
he is reading them daily, and gnashing his teeth over every page and sweating
bullets? Doubtful. Somehow Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Plato and the others all
inspired “racism.”

Trigger-free: hermetically
sealed
against all bothersome and
disturbing ideas

Do
the offending texts explicitly say something to the effect, “This is white
philosophy, and is intended to be imbibed by white men only”? Sorry, snowflake,
regardless of whether or not you agree with the texts and the authors – and the
implication is that you would not be able to comprehend a single of them, at
all, to even be able to agree or disagree with them, because your animus is so
Pavlovian, deep-seated and thoroughgoing – that is not what they say or insinuate,
not in the least.
Oxford
dons
may find themselves hanged in effigy if they ignore the latest triggering
offense. Of course, if your professor is of the old school who doesn’t think it
is necessary to engage with you facially, you can accuse him of racism.
Staff at Britain’s Oxford University
have been told that avoiding eye contact with students could constitute
“everyday racism”.
The BBC
reports
, it is included in a list of “racial micro-aggressions”
published in a newsletter by Oxford’s equality and diversity unit.
The newsletter claims racial
micro aggressions might include: “Not making eye contact or speaking
directly to people.”
And
if your professor finds your physiognomy dull or repellent, that is a double
offense. If you catch him looking askance while speaking to you, that’s a
triple offense of micro-aggression, and it might even suggest “beautyism” or
esthetic bias.
Claims
of micro-aggression are instances of intolerance.
As
McDonald explains, “Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an ideological one.” A student
can claim a micro-aggression over a piddly, or, in reality, the most
inconsequential behavior, statement, or thing, especially if he has been raised
in a family or pedagogical environment that inculcates fear and loathing of
himself and of others and of the culture he inhabits.
Academic intolerance is the product of ideological aggression, not a
psychological disorder.

Antifa,
colleagues in spirit
with the Muslim Brotherhood

In
today’s schools, the “ideological aggression” conforms to a kind of Progressive
jihad against the individual’s mind
and values.
The
chief focus is emotion – “that hurts my feelings, I don’t know why, it just
does, don’t ask me to figure it out, that’s asking me to think, to use reason –
and we’ve been taught that thinking and reasoning are tools of a patriarchy, of
capitalism, of racism, of transgender oppression, and of a million different bogeymen,
so why shouldn’t I hate the American flag and individual responsibility and
anyone who disagrees with how I feel about things?” They’ve been taught that
there is such as thing as “emotional
reasoning
” and that it trumps reasoning from facts. “Emotional reasoning
is a cognitive
process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves
something is true, regardless of the observed evidence.”
Anyone
found guilty of “micro-aggression” may
not
be intolerant; but the victim can be as intolerant as he pleases.
If
one’s teachers continually harp on the “evil” of America and of certain
freedom-associated ideas – and if that is all one hears without abeyance, and if
one’s cognitive abilities are have been sabotaged, derogated and dismissed by
those charged with developing one’s mind to deal with reality – all one can do
in response is rely on one’s emotions. That is sure to lead to one’s death.
The
“snowflake” generation will not produce a single Sherlock Holmes.
A
“trigger-happy” mind is capable of two aggressions: a “micro” verbal assault,
or a physical one. They are the only forms of “discourse” such a mind knows.
Beware, but speak, write, or act according to your lights and your values.

Previous

Groveling in the Dust Before Islam

Next

Linda Sarsour, the Stealth Jihadist

2 Comments

  1. Rob McVey

    The anti-thought phenomena is not limited to big schools. Recently a Cdn prof of psychology, Dr Jordan Peterson, was first invited to speak, then disinvited — at Linfield College (http://www.linfield.edu/), a small liberal arts institution in McMinnville, Oregon, about an hour outside of Portland. See his video (14 min.):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR-479eUCkI

    — Rob McVey, T4B

  2. Edward Cline

    Thanks. Will take a look.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén