"This is a military history class but it is called History of Conflict. We are going to discuss homicide and slaughter from the Pleistocene to the present day. Sex difference drives human violence so we will explore the disparate impacts of warfare on the two sexes as well as the role 'gender' plays in historical conflicts. There has never been a time of peace on earth. Here are slides showing evidence of cannibalism from around the world, all taking place in prehistoric times. Every single one of you sitting in this classroom is at the end of an unbroken chain of survivors reaching back to the Rift Valley in Africa. Survival cannibalism is just one reason why our ancestors ate the non-survivors -- yes, you and you and you and you and me, us, we, everyone here is the descendant of cannibals who survived in the deep past. There will be no trigger warnings in this class. This class ought to trigger you. By the time we have finished, your most precious, closely-held beliefs about peace and war and human nature will be completely overwhelmed and defeated by the archaeological, historical, and anthropological record. It will probably hurt to learn what I am teaching. Don't worry. That is merely the normal sensation of not being a psychopath."
I will never be able to deliver this lecture at an American university.
We as academics should be able to have two thoughts in our heads simultaneously, especially if they are both true and not contradicting each other at all. The first thought is: A) there is a lot of things very f-ed up in Academia. The second thought is: B) Trump is attacking higher eduction while he is leading us straight to authoritarian fascism. I just don't see how A becoming more true magically makes B less dangerous or more desirable.
If someone goes to a doctor with a headache, shooting them in the head will solve the headache issue, but there are probably less destructive ways to achieve this. To paraphrase a famous saying from the Vietnam era, it seems unlikely that we will save the village of Academia by destroying it.
Of course some people might be so angry at Academia they want to burn the entire place down (and the country it's in), and I've heard actually some angry academics say that, but I think we could reasonably agree that that's a bit of an overreaction.
You're exactly right, Nathaniel. As the Left continued to radicalize, many of us in academia had to keep our mouths shut for fear of being ostracized and canceled. I do NOT like what Trump is doing, but I can definitely see why some people see it as poetic justice.
"This is a military history class but it is called History of Conflict. We are going to discuss homicide and slaughter from the Pleistocene to the present day. Sex difference drives human violence so we will explore the disparate impacts of warfare on the two sexes as well as the role 'gender' plays in historical conflicts. There has never been a time of peace on earth. Here are slides showing evidence of cannibalism from around the world, all taking place in prehistoric times. Every single one of you sitting in this classroom is at the end of an unbroken chain of survivors reaching back to the Rift Valley in Africa. Survival cannibalism is just one reason why our ancestors ate the non-survivors -- yes, you and you and you and you and me, us, we, everyone here is the descendant of cannibals who survived in the deep past. There will be no trigger warnings in this class. This class ought to trigger you. By the time we have finished, your most precious, closely-held beliefs about peace and war and human nature will be completely overwhelmed and defeated by the archaeological, historical, and anthropological record. It will probably hurt to learn what I am teaching. Don't worry. That is merely the normal sensation of not being a psychopath."
I will never be able to deliver this lecture at an American university.
The thief no longer speaks kindly 😡
We as academics should be able to have two thoughts in our heads simultaneously, especially if they are both true and not contradicting each other at all. The first thought is: A) there is a lot of things very f-ed up in Academia. The second thought is: B) Trump is attacking higher eduction while he is leading us straight to authoritarian fascism. I just don't see how A becoming more true magically makes B less dangerous or more desirable.
If someone goes to a doctor with a headache, shooting them in the head will solve the headache issue, but there are probably less destructive ways to achieve this. To paraphrase a famous saying from the Vietnam era, it seems unlikely that we will save the village of Academia by destroying it.
Of course some people might be so angry at Academia they want to burn the entire place down (and the country it's in), and I've heard actually some angry academics say that, but I think we could reasonably agree that that's a bit of an overreaction.
You're exactly right, Nathaniel. As the Left continued to radicalize, many of us in academia had to keep our mouths shut for fear of being ostracized and canceled. I do NOT like what Trump is doing, but I can definitely see why some people see it as poetic justice.
When they go after the nsf they are so deeply wrong
It's an iron law of nature that FA-ing always and inevitably leads to FO-ing. We've known this for a very, very long time.
Proverbs 16:18 - “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Should be the official motto of the gop
Can't use gifs here, but....
"You. Me. Same."