Musings on Young Leftists

leftist youth

I have virtually no idea what folks are protesting at Missouri – something concerning a culture of fear I think.  Or oppression.  Or bigotry.

All things we should agree to want to see less of rather than more of, to be sure.

But this post isn’t about the cause or the reason or the specific event; it’s about the protest itself, the people that protest and the tactics they employ.

First, watch this video:

 

Not sure how I’d react if I was the dad of one of those wilting daisies in the video.  At first I was pretty irritated at those college kids in the footage, but having had time to reflect, I can see that these kids are being driven by the adults in the confrontation.

But really, these people, this protest movement; how are we supposed to take them seriously?  How do we interface and converse with people who have completely lost their mind?  How do you have a conversation with people who have NO room for debate?  Any dissension from their perfect point of view is met with HATE and INTOLERANCE.

How do you have a conversation with someone that can’t see a journalism student has the same right to the square as the protesters?

How do you have meaningful discourse with someone who advocates “No bad touch” and yet is quite willing to assault a photographer?

How do you debate the tender mercies of tolerance with someone who has none?

What kind of meaningful conversation regarding institutional intimidation can be had with people who very clearly mean to intimidate?

The answer?  None and you can’t.

The only, and I mean ONLY, upside to this whole thing is the incestual nature of the fight.  We don’t have liberals fighting conservatives or dems and repubs.  We don’t even have the 99% vs the 1%.  Here we have intellectual elite vs themselves.  We have privileged college administrators squaring off with the frankenstein they themselves created.

It reminds me of the old saw: “Mr. President, in a war between Iran and Iraq, who do you root for?”

Casualties.

These university administrators have fostered and coddled this behavior.   They have created it.  And nurtured it.  They own it.  I shed no tears for those administrators that lost their jobs.

Oh, and finally, how do you take this woman seriously:

Dr. Melissa A. Click earned her Ph.D. from the Department of Communication at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Her research interests center on popular culture texts and audiences, particularly texts and audiences disdained in mainstream culture. Her work in this area is guided by audience studies, theories of gender and sexuality, and media literacy. Current research projects involve 50 Shades of Grey readers, the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga, masculinity and male fans, messages about class and food in reality television programming, and messages about work in children’s television programs.

Further goodness from here:

Click’s dissertation for her Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst was about the “commodification of femininity, affluence and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon,” according to her CV. You can read the full dissertation here.

This the woman screeching for more ‘muscle’ to handle the ‘free’ press.

Liberals.

9 responses to “Musings on Young Leftists

  1. I’m curious if you’ll do a follow-up post on the fact that those very liberals you deride have denounced this behavior as fiercely as you do. You have a very interesting focus.

    “I have virtually no idea what folks are protesting at Missouri – something concerning a culture of fear I think. Or oppression. Or bigotry.”

    Implied, but not said. “And I don’t care.” Because with all that has gone on with this story, the only commentary you care to share is that a small segment of that very large effort acted stupidly. This protest was exactly the kind of protest you and your ilk are always calling for in lieu of barbaric behavior like looting and rioting. No one was harmed. The students had a very specific goal in their protest and they did it peacefully. The LEAST you could do when you decide to comment on it is to actually figure out “what folks are protesting.”

    • I’m curious if you’ll do a follow-up post on the fact that those very liberals you deride have denounced this behavior as fiercely as you do.

      Kinda. In the process now; though I suspect you won’t agree with my take.

      Implied, but not said. “And I don’t care.”

      We all have our passions. You yours and me mine. I *care*. It’s on my list of things I care about; just not as near the top as it might be on your list.

      I have finite rage.

      This protest was exactly the kind of protest you and your ilk are always calling for in lieu of barbaric behavior like looting and rioting.

      Ilk? Nice.

      But, yes, this is very far from the looting that we have seen in the recent past. Rather, this has the distinct flavor of the #OccupyWallStreet and their demonstrations – which I equally ridiculed for their silliness.

      No one was harmed.

      The reporter was assaulted.

      The students had a very specific goal in their protest and they did it peacefully.

      I have little confidence that there is anything specific, even remotely, in their reasons for protesting.

      The LEAST you could do when you decide to comment on it is to actually figure out “what folks are protesting.”

      Nah, man. When I see adult professors acting like that – I have no moral obligation to give an ounce of care about what they are protesting. They lost me at ‘Hello’.

  2. Unsurprisingly, you used the incident of the professors bad behavior to frame your response to my critique rather than the larger protest which was underway. It’s a fairly consistent tactic. I was not defending the idiot professor. I was encouraging you to expand your field of view.

    I use ilk because everything you’ve said is precisely what I heard on Rush Limbaugh the very day you posted this. The words were different (largely), but the content the same. So on this issue, I think it’s appropriate.

    Finally, you’re absolutely right. You’re under no moral obligation to care. You don’t even need to explain why you don’t care. That, my friend, is your privilege.

    • Unsurprisingly, you used the incident of the professors bad behavior to frame your response to my critique rather than the larger protest which was underway. It’s a fairly consistent tactic. I was not defending the idiot professor. I was encouraging you to expand your field of view.

      The scope of this post IS the idiot professors. And the kids.

      Through the entirety, unless I specifically mentioned otherwise, the ‘they’ and the ‘them’ refers to the precious children in the video and the other ‘professional protesters’.

      I use ilk because everything you’ve said is precisely what I heard on Rush Limbaugh the very day you posted this. The words were different (largely), but the content the same.

      From what I’m hearing from the ‘scream’osphere’, they are doubting the specific incidents even took place – so I think my complaint is different to a degree. I’m hammering the kids in that camp and in this video.

      That, my friend, is your privilege.

      I haven’t been able to find a good way to explain how I feel when I hear ‘privilege’ used as a weapon, tactic or method – so I’ll largely let it pass.

  3. Questioning the validity of racial experiences is a tried and true tactic. First, discredit the person making the claim, then discredit the claim itself. If you observe these things king enough, you see the tactic in play every time. One of the great frustrations I have is the constant desire by those who have little to no experience in these matters to lecture and dismiss rather than learn from those of us who do.

    And the fact that you see me pointing out that you have the privilege to not care as a “weapon, tactic, or method” speaks more to your chosen worldview than anything. You told me you are under no moral obligation. I acknowledged that and said that’s your privilege, which it is. You have nothing to explain or apologize for. I haven’t attacked your personhood, your liberty, your economic well-being, or even insulted you character. So I’m not sure why you feel a weapon was employed.

    • Questioning the validity of racial experiences is a tried and true tactic.

      Except no one is doing that here. In fact, if taken literally, I’m making fun of white educated elite suppressing a brown skinned minority.

      So I’m not sure why you feel a weapon was employed.

      Lemme use a word favored by the left.

      “Privilege” is a dog whistle for “Your view is invalid here because you are part of the oppressive majority that has been enriching yourself at the expense of minorities for centuries.”

      It isn’t meant to inform and add nuance to a debate – it’s meant to end it. Fists clenched, in a huff and stomping away.

  4. You absolutely ate questioning the validity of the racial experience. “They ate doubting the specific incidents incidents even took place..”

    And I used the word “privilege” precisely as I explained it. If you choose to ignore my explanation and lock in on your chosen interpretation, that is, if course, also your privilege. 😉

    • You absolutely ate questioning the validity of the racial experience. “They ate doubting the specific incidents incidents even took place..”

      Earlier you referenced my ‘ilk’ and linked it to talk radio – Rush et al. I was responding to that charge by claiming THEY are doubting …

      I have never doubted the claims made by the MU kids – I have no reason to doubt that the incidents they described occurred exactly as they said they did.

      And I used the word “privilege” precisely as I explained it.

      Just know – and I know you know – that ‘privilege’ is a dog whistle.

  5. One of the downsides to posting from my phone is that it’s hard to see my typos. If it’s not obvious, “ate” = “are”. My apologies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *