College Rankings
-
@lufins-dad said in College Rankings:
@Jolly What is going on with LSU? Third from the bottom? Wow.
and 23% support using violence to stop the speaker (up 5 percentage points). Two elite women’s colleges, Wellesley College and Barnard College, top this list, supporting the use of violence at 45% and 43% respectively.
That’s interesting as well as disturbing.
Progressive white women dominate our cultural ideas.
It’s like I’ve had a good point all along.
-
@Jolly What is going on with LSU? Third from the bottom? Wow.
and 23% support using violence to stop the speaker (up 5 percentage points). Two elite women’s colleges, Wellesley College and Barnard College, top this list, supporting the use of violence at 45% and 43% respectively.
That’s interesting as well as disturbing.
@lufins-dad said in College Rankings:
@Jolly What is going on with LSU? Third from the bottom? Wow.
and 23% support using violence to stop the speaker (up 5 percentage points). Two elite women’s colleges, Wellesley College and Barnard College, top this list, supporting the use of violence at 45% and 43% respectively.
That’s interesting as well as disturbing.
Don't know. I'll ask my nephew when I see him.
Used to have Free Speech Alley. That's where Carville got his start.
Some memories... https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/anybody-remember-free-speech-alley-at-lsu/94580691/
-
@horace said in College Rankings:
It’s like I’ve had a good point all along.
Don’t confuse droning on constantly about an idea with originating the idea.
@jon-nyc said in College Rankings:
@horace said in College Rankings:
It’s like I’ve had a good point all along.
Don’t confuse droning on constantly about an idea with originating the idea.
One can drone on about, and independently observe/formulate an idea. As for "originating" an idea, that is an impossibly high bar. Certainly, high enough that a guy like you couldn't possibly see it.
-
@catseye3 said in College Rankings:
You need to look at the poll answerers' veracity also. When they say yes! to violence to stop a speaker, are they telling the truth? Or are they getting off on shocking you or being a smartass?
Also need to examine the motives (if any) of the developers of the polls. Are they seeking to support a "truth" that they want to be true, or are they genuinely objective? Also how the questions are designed.
And so on.
I looked at the survey report. The actual text in the report concerning "use of violence to stop a speech" is as follows:
How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker:
...
Q18. Using violence to stop a campus speech?- 1% Always acceptable
- 5% Sometimes acceptable
- 17% Rarely acceptable
- 76% Never acceptable
@axtremus said in College Rankings:
I looked at the survey report. The actual text in the report concerning "use of violence to stop a speech" is as follows:
How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker:
...
Q18. Using violence to stop a campus speech?- 1% Always acceptable
- 5% Sometimes acceptable
- 17% Rarely acceptable
- 76% Never acceptable
1+5+17 = 23, right?
Rare ≠ Never.
-
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
Those are some independently formulated ideas, based on independent observations, custom written for our resident objective* thinkers.
(Not objectivist - that is the wrong white woman's ideas.)
Education is extremely important.
-
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
Those are some independently formulated ideas, based on independent observations, custom written for our resident objective* thinkers.
(Not objectivist - that is the wrong white woman's ideas.)
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence.
I would say it can, but it doesn't necessarily by definition. Although the extremely righteous can invite violence onto their own heads, being as they are exceptionally annoying most of the time, and can drive any otherwise reasonable person to shrieking and bludgeoning and other forms of destruction.
-
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence.
I would say it can, but it doesn't necessarily by definition. Although the extremely righteous can invite violence onto their own heads, being as they are exceptionally annoying most of the time, and can drive any otherwise reasonable person to shrieking and bludgeoning and other forms of destruction.
@catseye3 said in College Rankings:
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence.
I would say it can, but it doesn't necessarily. Although the extremely righteous can invite violence onto their own heads, being as they are exceptionally annoying most of the time, and can drive any otherwise reasonable person to shrieking, bludgeoning and other forms of destruction.
I'm sorry but each thread has room for only one person to express independently observed and formulated thoughts. I have already claimed this thread as a venue for my own. Please find another thread to express your ideas, thank you.
-
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
Those are some independently formulated ideas, based on independent observations, custom written for our resident objective* thinkers.
(Not objectivist - that is the wrong white woman's ideas.)
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
A certain objective* thinker you know has phrased it as "violence is hypermoralism".
-
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
A certain objective* thinker you know has phrased it as "violence is hypermoralism".
@jon-nyc said in College Rankings:
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
A certain objective* thinker you know has phrased it as "violence is hypermoralism".
No need for a neologism like "hypermoralism", unless one wants to pose. Righteousness is a fine word, probably better than whatever homebrew definition our objective thinker has in their rather muddy mind.
-
@jon-nyc said in College Rankings:
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
A certain objective* thinker you know has phrased it as "violence is hypermoralism".
No need for a neologism like "hypermoralism", unless one wants to pose. Righteousness is a fine word, probably better than whatever homebrew definition our objective thinker has in their rather muddy mind.
@horace said in College Rankings:
@jon-nyc said in College Rankings:
@horace said in College Rankings:
Righteousness begets violence. That is its purpose as an emotion, that is why it was selectively advantageous. People need to be sane and civil to form stable societies, but they also need to have a destructive, bloodthirsty mode. That is what righteousness is.
A certain objective* thinker you know has phrased it as "violence is hypermoralism".
No need for a neologism like "hypermoralism", unless one wants to pose.
I even say it in French in my head while writing it.
