• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ivy League crybullies vs. survivor of a Soviet labor camp; guess who needs the ’emotional support’?

maxparrish

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,262
Location
SF Bay Area
Basic Beliefs
Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
A dip into the bilge waters of the well heeled, contemporary student left...are these kids inspiring or what?

It’s hard to tell parody from real life on certain college campuses these days, but I’m pretty sure this article is serious. The article, from the Brown Daily Herald, discusses how Brown students’ emotional and academic well-being is suffering because they are so busy fulfilling their “social justice responsibilities” as student activists. (And here I thought that if my parents were paying $60K a year for me to go to school, my first responsibility would be to study!)

What I found especially of interest is that both this and a previous story in the Herald suggest that one incident that took an emotional toll on activists was protesting an appearance on campus by Natan Sharansky and Michael Douglas, who were there to discuss their perspectives on Judaism, Israel and current-day anti-Semitism. Students for Justice in Palestine decided that this would be a dandy occasion to engage in a loud, disruptive anti-Israel protest. An assistant dean was on hand, in part to provide “academic and emotional support” to the protesters, according to the Herald.

So there you have it; a group of Ivy League crybullies worn out from the emotional toll of protesting Natan Sharansky, a former dissident and survivor of years of confinement, including solitary confinement, in harsh Soviet prison camps. Is there a better indication of the decline of American higher-ed culture than a bunch of Ivy Leaguers at risk of emotional breakdown due to the presence of one of the great, stoic heroes of the Cold War on their campus?

(Sharansky, by the way, not only managed to weather the protests without needing “emotional support,” but took questions, including hostile ones, from the audience, and even tried to have a conversation with the protesters, who responded by shouting slogans at him.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...labor-camp-guess-who-needs-emotional-support/
 
What exactly does this handful of 19 year olds represent?

Besides themselves that is.
 
Sadly, we don't get to make a decision on how someone reacts emotionally.

For every two little kids in the park who come face to face with a pervert who exposes himself to them, there is one little girl needs therapy the rest of her life while the other turns her nose up at the pervert and says, "Who'd want to look at that ugly thing?" and is not disturbed at all.
 
Anyone else find the use of the term "crybullies" rather ironic considering the source?

The lede editor of the Washington Post?
You wrote the OP. Furthermore, the author of the opinion piece from which the term "crybullies" arose is not an editor of the Washington Post but a law professor at George Mason University. You used to better than this.
 
It’s hard to tell parody from real life on certain college campuses these days, but I’m pretty sure this article is serious. The article, from the Brown Daily Herald, discusses how Brown students’ emotional and academic well-being is suffering because they are so busy fulfilling their “social justice responsibilities” as student activists. (And here I thought that if my parents were paying $60K a year for me to go to school, my first responsibility would be to study!)

Okay, he's pretty sure the article is serious.


What I found especially of interest is that both this and a previous story in the Herald suggest that one incident that took an emotional toll on activists was protesting an appearance on campus by Natan Sharansky and Michael Douglas, who were there to discuss their perspectives on Judaism, Israel and current-day anti-Semitism. Students for Justice in Palestine decided that this would be a dandy occasion to engage in a loud, disruptive anti-Israel protest.

They were right. I mean, what better time to protest Israel's policies that when an Israeli politician is on campus?

An assistant dean was on hand, in part to provide “academic and emotional support” to the protesters, according to the Herald.

That's nice. It's good to have academic support in college, especially from the Dean's office. I'm sure the emotional support was also much appreciated.

So there you have it; a group of Ivy League crybullies worn out from the emotional toll of protesting Natan Sharansky, a former dissident and survivor of years of confinement, including solitary confinement, in harsh Soviet prison camps.

Wait, what?

Where did that come from? And who says they were being bullies?

This isn't just ranting because the students weren't given a beat down, like what used to happen to protesters on college campuses back in the 1960s, is it?

Is there a better indication of the decline of American higher-ed culture than a bunch of Ivy Leaguers at risk of emotional breakdown due to the presence of one of the great, stoic heroes of the Cold War on their campus?

Oh, I see. The author has a serious case of hero worship, and he's upset that the students saw fit to protest his hero's speech. Therefore, even though he thinks the article is serious, he doesn't take its content seriously. Instead of considering how stressful it is to work and attend college full time while also staying active in social justice or campus improvement causes, he just wants to call the students names.

Talk about a crybully. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

The Volkh Conspiracy is now a part-section of the Washington Post. Go to the article and see the copywrite.

washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2016 The Washington Post

So if the Volokh Conspiracy blog has been acquired by the Washington Post corporation, then in conclusion the author of the blog article must be the lead editor of the Washington Post?
 
The Volkh Conspiracy is now a part-section of the Washington Post. Go to the article and see the copywrite.

washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2016 The Washington Post

So if the Volokh Conspiracy blog has been acquired by the Washington Post corporation, then in conclusion the author of the blog article must be the lead editor of the Washington Post?

No, the conclusion is that as VC is now published as a section of the Washington Post, it is possible that (as is customary in newspapers) someone other than the article author supplied the headlines for the column - possibly a WP editor assigned to such tasks. It could also be the author. However, it's an insignificant point being quibbled given the actual OP.

Let's be clear:

1) The thread op is the copied article title (op title) and the article. Both can be read in full by using the link already provided. I wrote a single sentence in the OP. If you want to excoriate the points made - argue as you like.

2) Your confusion is from a derail started by LD's personal ad hom directed to me. In a rhetorical question, he foolishly assumed that I was the source that was using the term "crybully" and he asked if others "noticed the irony of the source" ( reminding us of Trump's 'classy' behavior, no?).

3) Even for an out-of-bounds ad hom it was blundering; clearly he ASSUMED I had authored the title. When I suggested it was written by another (WP editor), LD came back sputtering quibbles about WP editor(s) vs. authors, which is beside the point. I was not the source. He was caught ad hom'ing a poster, made silly by his firing before aiming.

So let's cease discussing LD's ad hom derails, shall we? LIke me, I am sure you don't want to be an ad hom enabler, right?
 
You wrote the OP. Furthermore, the author of the opinion piece from which the term "crybullies" arose is not an editor of the Washington Post but a law professor at George Mason University. You used to better than this.

He was never better than this.

Oh look, another ad hom! Sorry though, sounds better when Trump says it. You'll need a bit more practice.
 
Back
Top Bottom