Why is society normalizing mental illness?
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWa...
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
Showing posts with label snowflake generation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label snowflake generation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 August 2018
Sunday, 24 June 2018
Students may need counseling after 'required' diversity training
Celine Ryan
campusreform.org
Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.
MSU announced Wednesday that it is rolling out two new diversity trainings this fall, saying it is "expected" that faculty supervisors will "make this training required for student leaders."
Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.
MSU announced Wednesday that two new 90-minute workshops on social justice and diversity are being implemented for “student leaders" this fall, noting that staff/faculty supervisors are expected to “make this training required.”
While the announcement does not provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a student leader, it does state that "examples of student leaders/workers include: Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Office Assistants, Resident Assistants, Student Orientation Counselors, etc."
The announcement itself does not explicitly state that the workshops will be mandatory, saying only that “we encourage faculty and staff to send their student leaders and student workers to both training sessions.”
A supplementary document provided within the announcement, however, states that staff and faculty supervisors are "expected" to "make this training required for student leaders and stress the importance," as well as “encourage student interaction during the trainings” and "require students to complete pre- and post-training surveys."
Read more
campusreform.org
Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.
MSU announced Wednesday that two new 90-minute workshops on social justice and diversity are being implemented for “student leaders" this fall, noting that staff/faculty supervisors are expected to “make this training required.”
While the announcement does not provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a student leader, it does state that "examples of student leaders/workers include: Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Office Assistants, Resident Assistants, Student Orientation Counselors, etc."
The announcement itself does not explicitly state that the workshops will be mandatory, saying only that “we encourage faculty and staff to send their student leaders and student workers to both training sessions.”
A supplementary document provided within the announcement, however, states that staff and faculty supervisors are "expected" to "make this training required for student leaders and stress the importance," as well as “encourage student interaction during the trainings” and "require students to complete pre- and post-training surveys."
Read more
Tuesday, 9 May 2017
Are we living in a culture that prizes victimhood?
Sean Rife
Learn Liberty
In recent years, campus activists have become an increasingly visible aspect of American life. In 2015, Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis came under fire for encouraging students to critically consider a new policy on Halloween costumes. The controversy reached a boiling point when Nicholas Christakis met student demonstrators in a courtyard and attempted to engage them in discussion:
[...]
This behavior is condemnable for a host of reasons, the least of which is that much of what the protesters are shouting is just factually incorrect (for example, Murray has long supported gay marriage, but the chant "racist, sexist, anti-gay" is simply too good to pass up). That the protesters eventually resorted to violence speaks to their moral certitude (a phenomenon that can be observed in other, similar protests), which is all the more troubling.
And yet, there are seemingly respectable people willing to defend this kind of savagery. Writing for Slate, Osita Nwanevu argued that the protesters were correct (and presumably, the violence that they employed was acceptable) because Trump: "In the Trump era, should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning? Or should we dare to disagree?" At Inside Higher Education, John Patrick Leary quipped that the protesters had "every right to shout him down."
Disagreement is one thing. But shouting down opponents or - worse - engaging in violence in an effort to silence them is something else. Cultural Evolution: From Honor To Dignity
In a country that has traditionally touted its tolerance for the expression of a diverse range of views, how did we get here? Let's take a moment to review American cultural evolution.
Anyone who thinks that the nasty tone of American politics today is an historical anomaly should take a brief stroll down Google Lane and read about the Hamilton-Burr duel. The short version goes like this: Alexander Hamilton (former Secretary of Treasury) and Aaron Burr (Vice President of the United States) are longstanding political rivals. Upon learning that Hamilton had made particularly bruising comments about him at an elite New York dinner party, Burr challenges Hamilton to a duel. On July 11th, 1804, Burr shot Hamilton, who died the following day.
This sordid moment in American history is a classic example of what social scientists call a "culture of honor" - that is, a culture in which one's reputation is made and maintained by a protective attitude and aggression toward those who would attempt to exert their dominance. Reputation - what others think of you - is paramount.
Such cultures are blessedly rare in the Western world, having been largely supplanted by what sociologist Peter Berger called "dignity culture." In dignity cultures, a person's worth is internal, and isolated from public opinion. What matters most is how one handles the minor slings and arrows that accompany many human interactions; a person with dignity does so quietly, usually by addressing the offending party directly and in private, if at all. Dignity cultures are necessarily individualistic. There is no widespread notion of common guilt. Human agency is, by implication, paramount. It should be no surprise that for most of the 20th Century, Western societies have evolved to prize dignity over honor.
Read more
Learn Liberty
In recent years, campus activists have become an increasingly visible aspect of American life. In 2015, Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis came under fire for encouraging students to critically consider a new policy on Halloween costumes. The controversy reached a boiling point when Nicholas Christakis met student demonstrators in a courtyard and attempted to engage them in discussion:
[...]
This behavior is condemnable for a host of reasons, the least of which is that much of what the protesters are shouting is just factually incorrect (for example, Murray has long supported gay marriage, but the chant "racist, sexist, anti-gay" is simply too good to pass up). That the protesters eventually resorted to violence speaks to their moral certitude (a phenomenon that can be observed in other, similar protests), which is all the more troubling.
And yet, there are seemingly respectable people willing to defend this kind of savagery. Writing for Slate, Osita Nwanevu argued that the protesters were correct (and presumably, the violence that they employed was acceptable) because Trump: "In the Trump era, should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning? Or should we dare to disagree?" At Inside Higher Education, John Patrick Leary quipped that the protesters had "every right to shout him down."
Disagreement is one thing. But shouting down opponents or - worse - engaging in violence in an effort to silence them is something else. Cultural Evolution: From Honor To Dignity
In a country that has traditionally touted its tolerance for the expression of a diverse range of views, how did we get here? Let's take a moment to review American cultural evolution.
Anyone who thinks that the nasty tone of American politics today is an historical anomaly should take a brief stroll down Google Lane and read about the Hamilton-Burr duel. The short version goes like this: Alexander Hamilton (former Secretary of Treasury) and Aaron Burr (Vice President of the United States) are longstanding political rivals. Upon learning that Hamilton had made particularly bruising comments about him at an elite New York dinner party, Burr challenges Hamilton to a duel. On July 11th, 1804, Burr shot Hamilton, who died the following day.
This sordid moment in American history is a classic example of what social scientists call a "culture of honor" - that is, a culture in which one's reputation is made and maintained by a protective attitude and aggression toward those who would attempt to exert their dominance. Reputation - what others think of you - is paramount.
Such cultures are blessedly rare in the Western world, having been largely supplanted by what sociologist Peter Berger called "dignity culture." In dignity cultures, a person's worth is internal, and isolated from public opinion. What matters most is how one handles the minor slings and arrows that accompany many human interactions; a person with dignity does so quietly, usually by addressing the offending party directly and in private, if at all. Dignity cultures are necessarily individualistic. There is no widespread notion of common guilt. Human agency is, by implication, paramount. It should be no surprise that for most of the 20th Century, Western societies have evolved to prize dignity over honor.
Read more
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
British theatre now issuing 'trigger warnings' to avoid upsetting audience
RT
A major British theatre company is now issuing 'trigger warnings' at its more risqué performances to avoid upsetting audience members.
According to an update on the Royal Court's (RC) website, the theatre now provides special advice to customers wanting to talk about a play's content before watching it, to prevent "extreme distress."
"We don't want to spoil anyone's experience of a new play at the Royal Court and therefore avoid giving too much away when promoting the play," the site's trigger warnings section now reads.
"However we're also conscious that these moments can be particularly distressing for some individuals. If there are certain themes that you know would cause you extreme distress and you'd like to speak to one of the Royal Court team to find out more about a show before you book [you] can call the Box Office."
Although the company has never been criticized for the content of its performances, the Royal Court's latest performances of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice comes with an anti-Semitism warning.
Read more
Thursday, 9 February 2017
Lost in the Political Wilderness
Liberty Blitzkrieg
Michael Krieger
[...]
First off, I want to thank everyone for bearing with me during my break. It’s rare that I step away from my incessant reading and writing for such a lengthy period. Emotionally and intellectually, I found it to be deeply invigorating as well as periodically frustrating. Frustrating, in the sense that I am unquestionably addicted to reading about current events, yet I came to understand that removing yourself from the 24/7 outrage news cycle gives you some much needed perspective. By removing myself from the conversation for a moment, I was able to more clearly recognize just how completely idiotic the conversation has become.
Ultimately, whether or not I gained some genuine insight during my time away will be revealed by the quality of work I produce in the days, weeks and months ahead. So let’s get started.
One of the first tweets I published over the weekend as I was attempting to get back into the swing of things consisted of the following.
[...]
I was surprisingly pleased with the response it generated, and made me feel a bit more confident in the fact that there are many others out there who feel the same way. Unfortunately, it seems very few people with prominent platforms are consistently vocalizing this sense of isolation at the moment. Every day, millions of people are being pressured to “pick a side” by media, pundits, politicians — even close friends and family. Critical thinking that doesn’t fit into one of the two polarized camps of pro-Trump or anti-Trump are being dismissed or degraded. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs.
Read more
Michael Krieger
[...]
First off, I want to thank everyone for bearing with me during my break. It’s rare that I step away from my incessant reading and writing for such a lengthy period. Emotionally and intellectually, I found it to be deeply invigorating as well as periodically frustrating. Frustrating, in the sense that I am unquestionably addicted to reading about current events, yet I came to understand that removing yourself from the 24/7 outrage news cycle gives you some much needed perspective. By removing myself from the conversation for a moment, I was able to more clearly recognize just how completely idiotic the conversation has become.
Ultimately, whether or not I gained some genuine insight during my time away will be revealed by the quality of work I produce in the days, weeks and months ahead. So let’s get started.
One of the first tweets I published over the weekend as I was attempting to get back into the swing of things consisted of the following.
[...]
I was surprisingly pleased with the response it generated, and made me feel a bit more confident in the fact that there are many others out there who feel the same way. Unfortunately, it seems very few people with prominent platforms are consistently vocalizing this sense of isolation at the moment. Every day, millions of people are being pressured to “pick a side” by media, pundits, politicians — even close friends and family. Critical thinking that doesn’t fit into one of the two polarized camps of pro-Trump or anti-Trump are being dismissed or degraded. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs.
Read more
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Student Arrested, Facing Jail for Throwing a Paper Airplane at Teacher
Matt Agorist
Georgetown, SC — It appears that throwing a paper airplane at your teacher in school is now a police-enforced punishable offense consisting of jail time. An Andrews High School student is now learning the hard way about the repercussions of silly childhood pranks — in a police state.
Earlier this month, Georgetown County Sheriff’s Office deputies arrested 17-year-old David Michael Elliott after his instructor, Edward McIver, told the school resource officer that he wanted to press charges for an assault with a paper airplane.
Elliott was arrested and booked into Georgetown County Detention Center, where he was later released on a $1,087.50 bond. He is now facing charges of third-degree assault and battery — for a paper airplane.
As South Strand News reports, according to the incident report, McIver – a science teacher, who also serves on the Florence Public School District One Board of Trustees – contacted the school resource officer, Deputy Paul Glover, and told him he had been struck in the eye. In the report, Glover noted McIver’s eye appeared “very red.” Glover said McIver was “very upset” about being struck in the eye because of a recent ocular surgery.
No one here is arguing that Elliott shouldn’t face the consequences of throwing the paper airplane and striking his teacher in the eye. However, is police action really needed? It was a paper airplane — not a fist.
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
Unable to face reality: Hillary's sore losers
Diana Johnstone
Counterpunch
If the 2016 presidential campaign was a national disgrace, the reaction of the losers is an even more disgraceful spectacle. It seems that the political machine backing Hillary Clinton can't stand losing an election.
And why is that?
Because they are determined to impose "exceptional" America's hegemony on the entire world, using military-backed regime changes, and Donald Trump seems poised to spoil their plans. The entire Western establishment, roughly composed of neoconservative ideologues, liberal interventionists, financial powers, NATO, mainstream media and politicians in both the United States and Western Europe, committed to remaking the Middle East to suit Israel and Saudi Arabia and to shattering impertinent Russia, have been thrown into an hysterical panic at the prospect of their joint globalization project being sabotaged by in ignorant intruder.
Donald Trump's expressed desire to improve relations with Russia throws a monkey wrench into the plans endorsed by Hillary Clinton to "make Russia pay" for its bad attitude in the Middle East and elsewhere. If he should do what he has promised, this could be a serious blow to the aggressive NATO buildup on Russia's European borders, not to mention serious losses to the U.S. arms industry planning to sell billions of dollars worth of superfluous weapons to NATO allies on the pretext of the "Russian threat".
The war party's fears may be exaggerated, inasmuch as Trump's appointments indicate that the United States' claim to be the "exceptional", indispensable nation will probably survive the changes in top personnel. But the emphasis may be different. And those accustomed to absolute rule cannot tolerate the challenge.
Bad Losers On the Top
Members of the U.S. Congress, the mainstream media, the CIA and even President Obama have made fools of themselves and the nation by claiming that the Clintonite cabal lost because of Vladimir Putin. Insofar as the rest of the world takes this whining seriously, it should further increase Putin's already considerable prestige. If true, the notion that Moscovite hacking could defeat the favorite candidate of the entire U.S. power establishment can only mean that the United States' political structure is so fragile that a few disclosed emails can cause its collapse. A government notorious for snooping into everybody's private communication, as well as for overthrowing one government after another by less subtle means, and whose agents boasted of scaring the Russians into re-elected the abysmally unpopular Boris Yeltsin in 1996, now seems to be crying pathetically, "Mommy, Vlady is playing with my hacking toys!"
Of course, Russians would quite naturally prefer a U.S. president who openly shies away from the possibility of starting a nuclear war with Russia. That doesn't make Russia "an enemy", it is just a sign of good sense. Nor does it mean that Putin is so naïve as to imagine that Moscow could throw the election by a few dirty tricks. The current Russian leaders, unlike their Washington counterparts, tend to take a longer view, rather than imagining that the course of history can be changed by a banana peel.
This whole miserable spectacle is nothing but a continuation of the Russophobia exploited by Hillary Clinton to distract from her own multiple scandals. As the worst loser in American electoral history, she must blame Russia, rather than recognize that there were multiple reasons to vote against her.
Read more
Counterpunch
If the 2016 presidential campaign was a national disgrace, the reaction of the losers is an even more disgraceful spectacle. It seems that the political machine backing Hillary Clinton can't stand losing an election.
And why is that?
Because they are determined to impose "exceptional" America's hegemony on the entire world, using military-backed regime changes, and Donald Trump seems poised to spoil their plans. The entire Western establishment, roughly composed of neoconservative ideologues, liberal interventionists, financial powers, NATO, mainstream media and politicians in both the United States and Western Europe, committed to remaking the Middle East to suit Israel and Saudi Arabia and to shattering impertinent Russia, have been thrown into an hysterical panic at the prospect of their joint globalization project being sabotaged by in ignorant intruder.
Donald Trump's expressed desire to improve relations with Russia throws a monkey wrench into the plans endorsed by Hillary Clinton to "make Russia pay" for its bad attitude in the Middle East and elsewhere. If he should do what he has promised, this could be a serious blow to the aggressive NATO buildup on Russia's European borders, not to mention serious losses to the U.S. arms industry planning to sell billions of dollars worth of superfluous weapons to NATO allies on the pretext of the "Russian threat".
The war party's fears may be exaggerated, inasmuch as Trump's appointments indicate that the United States' claim to be the "exceptional", indispensable nation will probably survive the changes in top personnel. But the emphasis may be different. And those accustomed to absolute rule cannot tolerate the challenge.
Bad Losers On the Top
Members of the U.S. Congress, the mainstream media, the CIA and even President Obama have made fools of themselves and the nation by claiming that the Clintonite cabal lost because of Vladimir Putin. Insofar as the rest of the world takes this whining seriously, it should further increase Putin's already considerable prestige. If true, the notion that Moscovite hacking could defeat the favorite candidate of the entire U.S. power establishment can only mean that the United States' political structure is so fragile that a few disclosed emails can cause its collapse. A government notorious for snooping into everybody's private communication, as well as for overthrowing one government after another by less subtle means, and whose agents boasted of scaring the Russians into re-elected the abysmally unpopular Boris Yeltsin in 1996, now seems to be crying pathetically, "Mommy, Vlady is playing with my hacking toys!"
Of course, Russians would quite naturally prefer a U.S. president who openly shies away from the possibility of starting a nuclear war with Russia. That doesn't make Russia "an enemy", it is just a sign of good sense. Nor does it mean that Putin is so naïve as to imagine that Moscow could throw the election by a few dirty tricks. The current Russian leaders, unlike their Washington counterparts, tend to take a longer view, rather than imagining that the course of history can be changed by a banana peel.
This whole miserable spectacle is nothing but a continuation of the Russophobia exploited by Hillary Clinton to distract from her own multiple scandals. As the worst loser in American electoral history, she must blame Russia, rather than recognize that there were multiple reasons to vote against her.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
