Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
    Early 20s. Most of my peers are waiting until their early 30s to get married (if they ever do), and then proceeding to have 1-2 children (if they have any at all). The problems that these trends are going to create will make our current political issues look laughably insignificant.
    Mind if I ask what you mean here?

    Comment


    • How Minorities Have Fared in States With Affirmative Action Bans

      Black enrollment at UF takes a hit

      Black students are disappearing from the University of Florida campus at an alarming rate, despite efforts by campus recruiters.

      Enrollment of black freshmen dropped more than 50 percent between 2007 and 2013, with a high of 910, or 14 percent of 6,441 freshmen in 2007, compared with 395, or 6.2 percent of 6,370 freshmen in 2013, based on a database maintained by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
      The Missing Black Students at Elite American Universities
      Last edited by Legacy; 08-27-2016, 04:45 AM.

      Comment


      • It seems that Hispanics are on the up and up in most of those instances. I don't see the problem with the most qualified applicants filling up the universities.
        Running the damn ball since 2017.

        Comment


        • majority-of-canadians-support-prison-for-opponents-of-transgenderism

          I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the linked article. If this trend continues, it's safe to say martyrdom is drawing nigh.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
            majority-of-canadians-support-prison-for-opponents-of-transgenderism

            I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the linked article. If this trend continues, it's safe to say martyrdom is drawing nigh.
            84% seems like a shockingly high percentage of Canadians. Not saying the data isn't reliable, just surprised.
            I didn't know so many of our neighbors to the north would be willing to toss free speech in the garbage.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
              majority-of-canadians-support-prison-for-opponents-of-transgenderism

              I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the linked article. If this trend continues, it's safe to say martyrdom is drawing nigh.
              Also from Church Militant:
              CM EXCLUSIVE: IRISH LESBIANS RETURN, GIVEN STANDING OVATION AT CATHOLIC MASS

              When they went on Irish radio to complain about Murphy, he became the target of death threats from the Irish Republican Army. "I have been threatened by members of the local Sinn Fein IRA Party not to go into my local town unless I have a 'death wish,'" Murphy had told Church Militant.
              Last edited by Legacy; 09-15-2016, 03:41 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                majority-of-canadians-support-prison-for-opponents-of-transgenderism

                I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the linked article. If this trend continues, it's safe to say martyrdom is drawing nigh.
                Insane.

                But just as insane are the remarks down here about people who don't agree with the climate change narrative. Some have mentioned jail time (I think it was CA?)
                ...Can he play safety?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                  I'm uncertain what this means in relation to what I posted? You are one of the more mysterious posters. You often post interesting links but don't offer your own take (or rarely do).

                  I'm interested in your thoughts on either article.
                  Last edited by Veritate Duce Progredi; 09-15-2016, 04:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                    I'm uncertain what this means in relation to what I posted? You are one of the more mysterious posters. You often post interesting links but don't offer your own take (or rarely do).

                    I'm interested in your thoughts on either article.
                    I expect that everyone on this board starts off with their own opinions. I post links and not often my opinion, because I feel that respects their choices based on their values and perceptions.

                    As for the Canadian article, it's worthwhile to review Canada's hate speech laws and court decisions. Hate Speech Laws in Canada
                    Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

                    Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

                    Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

                    Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

                    Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
                    Within that context, the legislator who introduced that bill would seem to want to add hate speech about or to transgenders to those subgroups already covered under their Human Rights Act. With any of those qualifications (see link) that would make alleged hate speech not guilty, it would seem to me that only malicious speech with an intent to incite or harm could be found guilty. The link also lists the decisions in different cases that help define their case law. Cases found guilty of hate speech seem to result in fines or cease and desist orders.
                    How the author or website determined that 84% of Canadians favor prison for those who speak against transgenders as in the title is beyond me. In fact, the text says:
                    The non-profit Angus Reid Institute (ARI) released a study on September 7 showing 84 percent of Canadians approve the expansion of the Canadian Human Rights Act to encompass "hate speech" towards transgender Canadians.
                    That intentional misstatement and the sentences
                    Canadian Catholic bishops are largely silent on the government's latest moves to regularize transgenderism. A few, however, are speaking out, including Bp. Frederick Henry of the diocese of Calgary. He made headlines in January when he called the government "totalitarian," in reference to new educational guidelines forcing Catholic schools in Alberta to accept LGBT behavior among students.
                    led me to look at other articles in CM. I ended up with the Irish article, which noted a parishioner, Anthony Murphy,
                    He received no support from local clergy, his parish priest, Canon Frank McEvoy, even going so far as to call Murphy "homophobic." And Ireland's national police have told Murphy "not to attend Sunday Mass" out of concerns over his safety.
                    and Murphy said:
                    The recent homosexual scandal at the seminary in Maynooth and what is happening in Athy are symptomatic of the crisis facing the Church in Ireland. The Church is disintegrating before our eyes and not only do many of our bishops refuse to act but some even appear to want to help the disintegration. It is very clear to me that this is time for the faithful lay people to rise up and say: NOT IN OUR NAME. If our bishops are too timid to fight for Christ then we must.
                    Those were my conclusions and what I perceived as similar whether in contexts or in the blog's intentions.

                    Now I return to being mysterious.

                    Comment


                    • The Culture of Death, on the March in Colorado

                      Sick stuff.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                        majority-of-canadians-support-prison-for-opponents-of-transgenderism

                        I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the linked article. If this trend continues, it's safe to say martyrdom is drawing nigh.
                        From the article:

                        "Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-16 in May, which legislates that any person engaging in public speech condemning or questioning transgender ideology can face up to two years in prison"

                        So "questioning transgender ideology" would be punishable by jail time? Disturbing but not surprising given Canada's recent history on this type of thing. Just take a look at what conservative writer Mark Steyn dealt with regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

                        Complaining about Insufficient Complaints :: SteynOnline

                        Granted, Steyn is unabashedly conservative, but the manner in which the CHRC went about their business should be objectionable to anyone who believes in free speech and open process. Of course, speech has limits. But saying "I don't believe that transgenderism is legitimate" does not rise to the level of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

                        Comment


                        • Automated Inequality (Harvard Political Review)

                          Humans have been here before—at least three times before, in fact. At first, it was steam and water power; then came electricity and mass production; and then IT and computerization. Each time, Joseph Schumpeter’s “gale of creative destruction” blustered as rapid advances in technology destroyed some jobs, paved the way for new lines of work, and ultimately provided enhanced productivity and lifestyles for the majority. Researchers predict that over the next decade or so, emerging technological breakthroughs will once again fundamentally alter jobs and manufacturing processes around the world—but this time, the consequences could be drastically different.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                            Automated Inequality (Harvard Political Review)
                            Nice article. It's hard to imagine many jobs that aren't susceptible to automation. If we are able to devise a system where the benefits of automation spread through all demographic strata, we'll see an explosion in the arts and lifestyle artists.

                            If the work hours are reduced, as the article suggests, to 15 or thereabout, it isn't hard to see we'll all be looking for ways to do meaningful work. Hopefully volunteer organizations see participation skyrocket.

                            Our homes will be our magnum opus where we pour resources and sweat equity into beautifying our surroundings for hosting/games/fellowship.

                            But if we instead see the money funnel to the top, I foresee a very dystopian society.

                            Comment


                            • They're Neighbors of Mine (ND Magazine)

                              One night, deep in winter, deep in the Ohio countryside, midway through the 1950s when I was a boy of 10 or so, there came a knocking at our farmhouse door. Glad of an excuse to escape from the scary movie that was playing on our brand-new TV, with its round screen and murky black-and-white picture, I ran to answer the knock.

                              Opening the door, I found our neighbor from down the road, Mrs. Thompson, with a baby in her arms and her other four children huddled behind her, shivering. The look on Mrs. Thompson’s face was even scarier than the movie. “I need to ask your parents a favor,” she said.

                              Comment


                              • I won't fully implement this, but it's not a bad resolution to spend 2017 enjoying the great works and legacy of Western Culture.

                                Why I'm Only Listening To And Reading Old Things In 2017

                                2016 was the year of too much. It offered us a glut of sensational, sordid, stressful content. There was no end to the controversies, the crises, the chaos. (See Dave Barry for details.)

                                Meanwhile, social media and society kept barraging us with the new: Instagram changed into a fancier-logoed, easier-to-use version of Snapchat. Facebook created a new “marketplace” feature, and introduced us to live video.

                                The Times bestseller list kept our to-read list on Goodreads stocked to overflowing. Spotify reminded us constantly of all the man-bunned hipster bands we’d not yet listened to. Netflix churned out 100 new television series every month.

                                And now, frankly, it seems time for a break.

                                The Year of Too Much Content
                                The Internet—for many, though not all, of us—creates a glut of content that seems impossible to ignore. Its endless stores of information pull at our attention spans constantly. On the news front, we could browse new articles for ages. In the realm of music, new singles are released every day (if not every hour). New books appear on Amazon daily. Our Facebook feeds are an unending scroll. And with the growth of services such as Amazon and Netflix, there’s no end to the TV we can watch.

                                Of course, when faced with such an infinite barrage, people begin to grow tired. Some (like myself) will feel pressured and stressed to consume all the things. It’s because we’re mavens: lovers of information. We’re OCD, and hate leaving things half-done. We’re curious, and afraid of what we might be missing.

                                But eventually, even the most zealous of us will feel over-satiated and exhausted. That’s because no matter how much time we devote to the new, there will be another novelty on the horizon tomorrow. It never stops.

                                It doesn’t seem surprising, then, that there’s been a backlash against the new this year. Nostalgia has taken center stage: everyone’s collecting vinyl records, shopping at indie bookstores, replenishing his comic book collection, playing board games, and watching old favorite sitcoms like “Friends” and “Full House.”

                                Some people have decided to unplug entirely: seeking mindfulness and eschewing the temptations of FOMO, they’ve decided to set the smartphones and social media accounts aside, at least for a time.

                                Why Not Spend a Year Enjoying Old Stuff?
                                Some call this sort of attitude nostalgic or Luddite. Strains of that are involved, often enough. But it also seems that in a world of infinite choices, many are realizing that they crave limits and tangibility again: a concrete simplicity, a sense of ownership, the ability to say “This is enough.”

                                At least, that’s how I’m feeling, here at the end of 2016. I want a year to recharge by returning to old favorites, instead of constantly pursuing the new.

                                So I intend to spend 2017 re-reading, re-watching, and re-listening. It will be a year dedicated to enjoying the treasures of the past—the stories, songs, and shows that I’ve forsaken, and even forgotten, in the glut of newness that’s washed over me these past few years.

                                2017 will be about reading the classics that formed so much of my intellectual and personal life: from the greatness of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville to the dark thoughtfulness of Albert Camus and Frederic Nietzsche. I intend to revisit favorite classics by Jane Austen, J.R.R. Tolkien, Zora Neale Hurston, and John Steinbeck.

                                I want to revisit all the school books I rushed through: everything from Russell Kirk’s essays to “Paradise Lost” (still ashamed). This is an opportunity to deeply study some of history’s greatest works. To understand them more deeply, and learn from the greatest literary and philosophical masters of all time. I want to dwell for a while on Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” to sink my teeth into Plato’s “Republic,” to ponder the greatness of Dostoevsky’s “Brothers Karamazov.”

                                There will finally be time to re-watch my favorite movies—from black and white classics like “Casablanca” to Agatha Christie’s murder mysteries. And when I listen to music, I can spend as much time as I want on the wonders of Bach, or revisit my favorite teenage bands like Muse and The National.

                                Sometimes, It’s Important to Take a Step Back
                                The point isn’t to eschew new stuff. At the end of the year, I’ll be able to read all the many articles that will be written about “The Best Books of 2017,” and take my pick. Because of the nature of my job, I’ll probably read some of them, despite my overall commitment to old stuff.

                                But it’s easy, especially in the digital age, to get swept up with every new wave and trend: to forget just how many delights lie in the past. 2017 will be about remembering those delights.

                                Part of this commitment is about slowing down. 2016 felt especially chaotic—perhaps because of its unpredictability, or perhaps because of the growing monstrosity of the Internet. I’m guessing it’s some combination of the two. The clamor of things to be read and watched and listened to never ended, and it has been wearying trying to keep up.

                                Additionally, I want to take a longer, deeper look at the lessons of the past. Isaac Newton once said that “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” So much analysis this year went wrong: there were the upsets offered by Brexit and the U.S. presidential election. There were the endless puzzlings over Trump’s voter base, the crisis of postindustrial towns, the opioid crisis our nation faces.

                                Sometimes, our best predictions are wrong. This year, they were dead wrong. Perhaps one of the best responses we can have is to turn to the best thinkers of the past, and learn from them. We may not be able to change or solve all our dilemmas; but perhaps we will be better equipped to handle them, one at a time.

                                2017 Can Be an Opportunity to Rediscover Delight
                                Perhaps most importantly, however, this will be a year of rediscovering delight. 2016 was, it has largely been acknowledged, depressing. It was a dark and disappointing year for many. It has been a tiring year for me.

                                What I want to find is that joy I used to feel when opening the first page of a book: not to treat it as a means to an end, not to overanalyze it, but rather, to lose myself in the joy of a good read without thought of any “end” other than the story itself.

                                I want to sink into a song, and delight in it—without thought of whether it’s the next new thing I must share with my friends, without thought of the other endless options I could be uncovering. I want to dwell, here and now, in this moment.

                                My prediction: I’ll have a lot more fun this year. We’ll see if I’m right.

                                Comment


                                • Perhaps this would be a great opportunity to finally make it through the corpus of Shakespeare:

                                  https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...ng-shakespeare

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                    I won't fully implement this, but it's not a bad resolution to spend 2017 enjoying the great works and legacy of Western Culture.

                                    Why I'm Only Listening To And Reading Old Things In 2017
                                    Too funny. As I clicked on this thread, I had just finished compiling a reading list of the new Star Wars canon for this year. Only 133 comic books and 15 novels.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                      Too funny. As I clicked on this thread, I had just finished compiling a reading list of the new Star Wars canon for this year. Only 133 comic books and 15 novels.
                                      That is all being released this year? Or stuff from the past couple years that you haven't read yet?

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                        That is all being released this year? Or stuff from the past couple years that you haven't read yet?
                                        That's all the stuff from the "new canon" since Disney wiped out the EU in 2014. I've already read most of the novels but now I'm moving into the comics.

                                        Comment


                                        • I sort of stumbled into the same idea for 2017...just started Moby Dick, Don Quixote, plato's republic, and have a lot of history books on my wishlist. Unfortunately, I think our cultural, collective attention span for some of the really awful shit that has happened in the past has reached its limit and we are staring down (plummeting towards?) repeating some of the worst of it.
                                          "Tribal tattoos: Another way to say you will be sent dick pics."
                                          -rifftrax

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                            That's all the stuff from the "new canon" since Disney wiped out the EU in 2014. I've already read most of the novels but now I'm moving into the comics.
                                            Gotcha

                                            Comment


                                            • <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lyLUIXWnrC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                              Comment


                                              • A professor, whom I believe to be the one that Whiskey wishes ND would poach from Providence, wrote a book about restoring American culture. He also was recently on The Federalist's podcast and lamented on the loss of classical education in this country. This link is to the "Radio Hour" and below is the link to the article. How American Culture Must Restore Its Schools, Art, And Institutions

                                                How To Rebuild American Culture 'Out Of The Ashes' Of Modernity

                                                Edward Gibbon’s 1776 work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, remains the standard for literary works intimating civilizational collapse. Gibbon’s thesis: It was not enemies from without that sacked the Roman Empire, but rot from within that ultimately caused the demise of the greatest empire the world has ever known. From time to time books are written echoing Gibbon’s tone as the inexorable tendency remains to equate the downfall of a nation with certain observable events.

                                                Anthony Esolen’s book, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture is such a work – with a twist. He does not simply propound evidence showing “sometimes entire civilizations do decay and die,” but he offers ways to arrest the decline and rebuild the ruins. For Esolen, the signs are clear. The “erasure and oblivion” of history combines with a loss of civic virtue rendering modernity’s onslaught a victory over tradition and memory. Believing most people to be “incompetent in the ordinary things of life,” he presents the past as a more stable and substantive way of life than the technological and atomized present.


                                                This can be dangerous, as he freely admits, but the risk of nostalgia is outweighed by exposing the “cant” of modern language. The corruption of language (to echo George Orwell) is the clearest indication that tyranny is close at hand. He believes one must be “educated into cant” because nature does not confer the “kind of stupidity” so prevalent in what Malcolm Muggeridge called “the great fraud and mumbo-jumbo of the age.”

                                                An All-Eating Government
                                                To state Esolen is convinced the largesse of modern government is corrupt would be to understate his disdain for “a government that has taken an all-eating life of its own.” Attempts to persuade others of the evils of government bureaucracy come by way of his opening “an artery every year for government at all levels.” Believing it to be “incompetent, destructive of ordinary social relations, tyrannical, redundant, parasitical, and perverse,” he would not exactly laud Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s statement in the 1927 dissent of Compańía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” For Esolen, modern society is anything but civilized:

                                                We spend far more money on social welfare, in real dollars and as a percentage of federal outlays, than Roosevelt did, and what do we have to show for it? Forty percent of children born out of wedlock, whole generations of broken and never quite-formed families, men checking out of productive work, and immense bloodsucking bureaucracies that perpetuate the pathologies they are supposed to cure.
                                                These are the words of a man convinced modern culture is awash in lies. So pervasive and persuasive are modern lies that “it is almost impossible in the modern world not to accept lies as a matter of course.” As a Roman Catholic, the essence of what he believes “is contained in the Nicene Creed.” Truth for him, therefore, is grounded theologically, not politically. Although Aristotle famously said man is zoon politikon (a political animal), Esolen’s political theory would not incorporate the idea of the polis eclipsing the local and personal aspects of life where those who rule are known by those who are ruled.

                                                The book is sectionalized to cover five thematic rubrics with an arc bending toward the restoration of a distinctly Christian worldview in order to rebuild American culture. For Esolen believes “the great questions of human existence are and always will be religious.”

                                                Thinking Grammatically

                                                Waiting to clearly define “culture” deep into the book in the chapter on K-12 education as “a cultivation of the things that a people considers most sacred,” religion is the indispensable factor in his moral calculus. Esolen understands “the health of a society” to be gauged “by how full the churches are.” If he is correct, then American society is quite ill.

                                                As an example of just how corrosive American society has become, he believes knowledge and skill in English has plummeted to such a low level that “there is no beauty to grammar” because the intellectual capacity of modern students to “think grammatically” has been reduced to “an unorganized heap of apparently arbitrary rules.”

                                                Ever the English professor, he builds the case for an “architectonic” understanding of grammar whereby language both builds concepts and connects ideas across academic disciplines. The better a student understands and uses grammar, the better she will find the “grammar” of geography and biology – subjects quite different and seemingly unrelated – more easily understood as “observable and rational” categories capable of being integrated into a holistic curriculum.

                                                Why? Because the better students can recognize, analyze, and mobilize words, the better they will understand that “all human sciences are grammatical in structure.” Thus, investigation of “grammatical keys” opens doors of thought that stir curiosity and propel a lifelong quest of discovery and learning.

                                                Treating Children Like Machines

                                                Esolen laments the loss of schools that once looked like town halls. Once delivered in simple one-room schoolhouses with architectural beauty underscoring a personal connection to a particular land, community, and country, the local school has been replaced by “the world’s most brutal architecture” where children are taught as if they were machines.

                                                The schools we have built in the last sixty or seventy years do not resemble town halls. If they resemble anything governmental, it is the bureau, the office building, where human business goes to be swallowed up, as Charlie Chaplin’s little factory worker in Modern Times is swallowed up in the gigantic gears of the mill or as the girl dancer in Return of the Jedi, after pleasing His Immensity is swallowed up by Jabba the Hutt.
                                                He is no kinder to higher education. He believes the modern university has become a “secular polytechnicum.” College is now a place where no common bond of academic unity is forged because any semblance of unity in diversity is gone as people are “severed from one another and from the past.” The result is a sprawling development burdened with a “stifling and immensely expensive bureaucracy” with no true heart for learning or moral order.

                                                This book seems to be Esolen’s parting word to a world he is determined to exit. He cannot abide a government where one of the most passionate moments of a major political party’s 2016 national convention was “when a woman stood before them and boasted that she had snuffed out the life of her child in the womb.” Neither can he stomach a more efficient Leviathan where the founding vision of federalism in America is now all but a centralized government monstrosity where the likes of a “national committee to send official Diaper Changers to every home with a little baby in it” is the norm. Reform of existing structures, however, is not possible.

                                                Questions of Legitimacy
                                                What to do? Esolen recommends a renewed investigation into subsidiarity where “social concerns should be left to the smallest group that can reasonably deal with them, the group that is nearest to the concerns in question.” This comes at his behest for others to be convinced “that the central government’s arrogation of power is illegitimate.” This is not to say he is advocating illegal action or needless civil disobedience. Rather, he suggests full compliance to the law, but not full obedience. That is to say, not to take illegitimate edicts into the mind and heart as if they possessed “legitimate authority.”


                                                Leveraging what remains of liberty under law should be the practice of all who desire a localism to take root absent the encroachments of government regulations and bureaucratic protocols. His ultimate aim is a return to a local and personal focus of society that would eviscerate the power of state-sanctioned intrusions into the most intimate areas of life. His is a quiet revolution – a return to a simpler time when the so-called progress of the technocratic age did not stifle creativity and regulate life’s closest relationships.

                                                At bottom, Esolen’s vision is closely bound with nostalgia – a very dangerous and forbidden place to linger for very long. Holy Scripture warns in Ecclesiastes 7:10: “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.” Modern life is just that – modern. While many of the realities Esolen reveals are as dastardly as he describes, the challenge remains to balance the prescription of an escape toward home with an engagement in the public square where policies that once were written by men can be changed by men in restoration of what has been lost.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                                  Esolen recommends a renewed investigation into subsidiarity where “social concerns should be left to the smallest group that can reasonably deal with them, the group that is nearest to the concerns in question.” This comes at his behest for others to be convinced “that the central government’s arrogation of power is illegitimate.”
                                                  Sounds like me.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Esolen is a boss. If the Dominicans* at Providence won't protect him from the snowflakes trying to run him out of the school, ND ought to poach him ASAP. His translation of Dante's Divine Comedy is my favorite.

                                                    *I'd expect this sort of thing from a Jesuit institution, but not a Dominican one...

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                      Esolen is a boss. If the Dominicans* at Providence won't protect him from the snowflakes trying to run him out of the school, ND ought to poach him ASAP. His translation of Dante's Divine Comedy is my favorite.

                                                      *I'd expect this sort of thing from a Jesuit institution, but not a Dominican one...
                                                      You'd expect the Godless Jesuits to run him out? Or you'd expect the Godless Jesuits to protect him?

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by Rack Em View Post
                                                        You'd expect the Godless Jesuits to run him out? Or you'd expect the Godless Jesuits to protect him?
                                                        To let the snowflakes run him out. That this is happening even at schools run by Dominicans is super depressing.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                          Esolen is a boss. If the Dominicans* at Providence won't protect him from the snowflakes trying to run him out of the school, ND ought to poach him ASAP. His translation of Dante's Divine Comedy is my favorite.

                                                          *I'd expect this sort of thing from a Jesuit institution, but not a Dominican one...
                                                          The Dominicans don't want the Summa in Prose overshadowing the Summa itself.

                                                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Speaking of Esolen, he just published an article in Chronicles titled "Ut Plures Sint":

                                                            “I have prayed for you,” said Jesus to the apostles on the night before he died, “that you would be several, even as the Father and I are two.” For the Son, we are told, sees what the Father does, and then goes and does something else. And Saint Paul praised the church at Corinth, hearing that there were divisions among them, while Saint Peter reminded his charges to be sure that there would be a diversity of faiths and baptisms, because after all each person constitutes his own church, and what is good for one might not be good for another. “Hear, O Israel,” says Moses, “the Lord your God is one, but he is not necessarily the one and only.”

                                                            “Go,” said the Lord to the prophet Hanniba’al, “and say to King Josiah: Thus says the Lord: I have seen your zeal in tearing down the groves and the booths and the high places, and pouring their refuse into the valley of Gehenna. You have done evil in my sight. What is it to me, if a father or mother should make a child pass through the fire to Moloch? What is it to me, O King of Judah, if the rich man should lie with the girl or the boy in the booths of Asherah?”

                                                            For the last three months I have been asking people at my college what the phrase cultural diversity means, if it does not mean “a diversity of cultures thriving all over the world” or “the study of a broad diversity of cultures spanning four millennia and four or five continents,” such as characterizes our besieged program in the Development of Western Civilization. I have bent my brows to solve a linguistic problem. What are we talking about?

                                                            We cannot be talking about culture, the thing itself. Why not? For one thing, those who talk all the time about cultural diversity are nominalist in ontology and relativist in epistemology; they do not care much to distinguish the good from the bad, the true from the false, and the beautiful from the ugly. Of course I speak in general terms, but it is still a shock to hear someone, as I have recently, in the same breath insist upon cultural diversity and then resist any attempt to define culture, saying that it means different things to different people, and there’s an end on it. No one who cares about human culture, or about any particular culture, could say such a thing. It is like saying that fidelity to your wife is of utmost importance, and that fidelity has no meaning beyond what you arbitrarily choose to assign to it.

                                                            Let us attempt to do what the diversitarians do not do. Let us try to make sense. Culture, says a Jewish rabbi writing for the Orthodox in 1929, is the manifestation of “the divine, in man and through man.” He proceeds to show us how the Jewish lad must allow the Torah to take root in his mind, to form his imagination, and to direct his passions, his thoughts, and his deeds. Now that is something I can understand: It is a definition. The rabbi would no more recommend “diversity” in the boy’s prayer and worship than he would recommend that a married man experiment with other women on the side.

                                                            Or we might turn to Josef Pieper, in Leisure: The Basis of Culture, and note that a genuine celebration without the gods is unknown in human experience, no matter how tenuous the association may have become. Pieper says that the holy day must be set aside for man’s enjoyment—not merely for physical relaxation so that one may more energetically strap oneself to the treadmill on Monday. This enjoyment, this celebration, is never to be subordinated to pragmatic aims; it is not for anything but itself. It is sanctified, like the space of the temple. Is something like that what the purveyors of “cultural diversity” intend—a proliferation of holy places and holy days, and a turn of the human mind away from economic or social or political work, and toward free worship and song?

                                                            The question answers itself. You cannot have a holy place unless you really believe that it is holy, hallowed by God or by one of His appointed ministers. But that is precisely what the diversitarian cannot do. Because he is committed neither to any one culture, nor to the survival of other cultures singularly themselves across the world, he is at best a tourist of the holy, in Rome with the Catholics and on the banks of the Ganges with the Hindus, but not really a part of any of them. At worst he demands that others adopt his indifference, or his hatred of the boundary-drawing force of religion and culture, and that must destroy the very sense of the holy itself.

                                                            If culture has not to do with the divine, or with the holy as set apart from utilitarian purposes, we might fall back upon the wisdom of the bittersweet moralist Matthew Arnold, for whom culture is “a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world.” So were Methodists to be elevated by Anglicans with better taste in art, music, and poetry. Such trust in Christian culture apart from Christ would fall to pieces on the fields watered by the Marne and the Saone; nor is any such pursuit intended by the purveyors of “cultural diversity.”

                                                            Why do I say so? The pursuit of excellence leans by nature toward an aristocracy of fact if not in law. Someone brought up on Homer’s Odyssey is ready to encounter the Irish Tain Bo or the Finnish Kalevala, without having to accept any political nonsense about their being equally grand, if such a statement can have any meaning at all. I once met a young man who was learning Georgian, the national language of those hardy people living on the slopes of the Caucasus Mountains. When I asked him why, he replied that there was a great but unknown poet there whose work no one in the rest of the world knew, and he wanted to bring the man’s accomplishments to speakers of English. That was all there was to it. He had no political motives. He was himself not Georgian. Is that what the purveyors of diversity want?

                                                            If it is, then why do they so continually belittle the classical education that makes such an aim conceivable, and that produces people who could accomplish it? A lover of John Milton can understand the young man’s aspiration. The educational politician cannot, unless the poet’s work can be used for propaganda. That the poet should transform his readers in their pursuit of “total perfection”—that never occurs to the diversitarian, because he is loath to thinking in such aristocratic terms. Otherwise he would have to open himself up to the titanic greatness of a poem like Paradise Lost, rather than dismissing it as the product of a dead man with the wrong complexion. Beauty and political activism do not abide well together. Apollo does not sing about Title IX.

                                                            Diversitarians are not interested in the best—but what about ranging abroad in the world? If I browse my copy of six months of The Century, 1885, an all-purpose literary magazine, I see travelogues and geographical appreciations everywhere. Nothing human was alien to the readership of The Century. We go to the arctic coasts inhabited by the Chilcats in Alaska, to Florence and Siena and Pisa, to the summer haunts of artists in the Hudson Valley, to the great Yukon River, to Sussex and Warwickshire, to Indian reservations in the Oklahoma territory, to a hunting and sporting camp in the Thousand Islands, to the wilds of northern Borneo, to Afghanistan and the Khyber Pass, to the old American colonies, to Constantinople and the priest-scholar responsible for the newly discovered Didache, and to an Arctic expedition turned tragic in Smith Sound. These articles are such as would naturally interest people with a classical education, which was inevitably an education into cultures far different from theirs. Aeschylus is not Newman.

                                                            But if I browse the catalogue of my college’s Sociology Department, I see no such fascination with cultures. All of the courses focus on the present; cultures of the past have fallen into oblivion. I take as a typical example the description of a course called Sociology of Education:

                                                            The main objective is to determine who succeeds and who fails in school and beyond, and why. We study the effects of schooling with attention to cognitive and affective outcomes, the problems of providing equal educational opportunity, the determinants of educational attainment, the controversial issue of tracking, and the effects of non-school-related factors upon student achievement.
                                                            What is this “school” they are talking about? It isn’t the one-room schoolhouse of a century ago. It isn’t the Renaissance studio where the boy Michelangelo learned his craft. It isn’t the medieval guild. It isn’t the Greek gymnasion. One might think that a course called Sociology of Education would address what an education is and what it has to do with the human society where we find it—questions philosophical and cultural. Where, here, are the great writers about education and social life? Where are Ruskin, Newman, Plato, and Confucius? It is as if the entire history of man had collapsed into a couple of acres, with an ungainly North Nowhere High squatting upon it like a factory or a toad.

                                                            So, too, almost every one of the courses in the department. We might call them “Studies in Liberal Analysis and Political Action in the Current United States with Regard to X”—Urban Life, Women, the Family, and so forth. The courses have nothing to do with history or with culture properly speaking, yet their professors profess to be great proponents of “cultural diversity.”

                                                            What then can the phrase possibly mean? The department’s self-description gives us a clue:

                                                            The sociology department offers students the chance to examine the world through a sociological lens, which illuminates the connection between individual troubles and public issues. Through active learning and civic engagement, students are challenged to approach their world critically and to achieve a sharper understanding of how inequality, exclusion, and institutions impact both society at large and individual opportunities, experiences, and realities.
                                                            Set aside the barbarous prose and the tautology of the first sentence. Everything in that description is a problem—is something to despise, to hate, to wish to wipe off the face of the earth. There is no hint of gratitude for beauty or goodness. There is no sense that any human society must involve compromise. Students are apparently never to study other cultures in order to turn a critical eye upon their own liberal assumptions, particularly the assumption that equality is the sine qua non of human flourishing—a deeply dubious assumption, as any soldier, football player, head of a business, or honest teacher could tell you.

                                                            I teach Milton because I love Milton. They teach about “inequality, exclusion, and institutions” because they oppose those things: They are defined not by what they love but by what they hate. Since they have so little by way of cultural knowledge, the thing most available for their hatred is their caricature of the civilization they so relentlessly work upon: They hate what they think is the West. They do not want so much to read the Rig-Veda as not to read the Oresteia. The East or the South is valuable to them not in itself but in its not being Western. “Cultural diversity” does not then mean that you study Palestrina and Zulu polyphony. It means that you apply yourself to contemporary identity politics in the post-Christian and postcultural West, without understanding how thoroughly Western you are. You will listen neither to Palestrina nor to the Zulus, but to some “artist” in California who can be used as a political weapon.

                                                            So “diversity” means not that there should be a diversity of thriving cultures across the world, but that this civilization and what is left of American culture should pass away. Since people who want this show little sense of what a culture is, they are cavalier about what is to replace what they hate. That does not matter, nor does it matter whether their prescriptions here destroy cultures elsewhere to boot. Hence the attacks by global organizations against Christian African states whose people are wary of ingesting the viruses that have vitiated the cultures of the attackers.

                                                            Here we approach the heart of the problem. Suppose I note the obvious, that the collapse of the natural and God-ordained family in the West has visited grave harm upon the most vulnerable among us, particularly African-Americans. Suppose I then say that feminism has played its part in this collapse, just as the birth-control pill, also celebrated by feminists, has brought on a surge in the incidence of breast cancer. Will the purveyors of “diversity” reconsider their ideological commitments for the sake of millions whose lives are at stake? Will they spare visiting Sodom and Gomorrah upon that part of the world still relatively free of the infection?

                                                            Hardly. The watchword now is intersectionality, by which is implied an equivalence between one sort of attributed odium and another: between racism and the desire of every healthy father who ever breathed upon earth that his son might grow into manliness, attracted to women and attractive to them in turn. In other words, if you believe that boys ought to be guided firmly and gently into that natural manhood, to take wives and to beget children by them, and that anything that might derail them with unnatural temptations must be kept out of their sight, you might as well be hanging a racist sign on the water fountain.

                                                            After worship, the most determinative feature of any culture is how it comes to terms with sex: the facts of male and female, and their relations to each other and to their children. But the secular West now decrees: For the sake of “gender diversity” there shall be no boundaries, no definitions.

                                                            That is an all-eating acid. No culture can contain it.


                                                            Some permissions purport to broaden the field of human action but destroy the thing they work upon. I have called it the Nude Beach Principle. If you permit people at a beach to wear nothing at all, then that is eo ipso a nude beach, even if most people refuse the permission. It is now a wholly different place from what it was. It used to be a beach where decent parents could take their children. The permission destroys that. If the permission is extended to all beaches, the result is not more freedom, but far less: a homogeneity of moral nihilism as regards decency. Sexual “diversity” applies the Nude Beach Principle to every culture in the world. The result will be not cultural diversity but a fungal homogeneity, with culture reduced to a few superficialities of dress and cuisine.

                                                            Summing it up, then: To its most vocal proponents, “cultural diversity” implies a virtuous hatred of Western civilization, and the global spread of a secular Western ethic as regards sex, marriage, family, and the rearing and education of children. The result will be not diversity but dreary sameness; not jewels gleaming each in its particular character, but mud.

                                                            Now we may return to the teachings of Christ and the Church. Christian liberals say that “diversity,” so defined, is compatible with the faith. But it is not compatible with any decent pagan culture, let alone with Christianity. No pagan hates his own home, and the home for Christianity was the world wherein it pleased the Father to send the Son: the particular world of the Jewish faith amid the political and intellectual matrix of Greco-Roman antiquity. You may begin by hating Plato and Aristotle, Aeschylus and Sophocles, Virgil and Ovid, Origen and Augustine; you will end by hating Christ. Nor can any pagan accept the secular West’s sexual disintegration-by-design. To say that it does not matter how the next generation is brought into the world is to say that the future need have no connection with the past, and that is to say that there shall be no culture at all.

                                                            Demons can only parody the divine, and we have such a parody here. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He did not command them to obliterate the nations. The Church has embraced, cleansed, and elevated cultures: They, though many, can become one in Christ. The secular West has lost any sense of the goodness of human nature and of gratitude to its Creator, but has not lost the universal mission of the Faith. The result is endlessly aggressive and never satisfied, like the rage of Milton’s Satan, which

                                                            like a devilish engine back recoiled
                                                            Upon himself; horror and doubt distract
                                                            His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
                                                            The Hell within him, for within him Hell
                                                            He brings, and round about him, nor from Hell
                                                            One step no more than from himself can fly
                                                            By change of place.
                                                            Ah, but they don’t read Milton anymore, do they?

                                                            Comment


                                                            • What could be more "cultural" than this:

                                                              Man Describes All 50 States If They Were People In A Bar | The Federalist Papers

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                I'd hang out with Michigan.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                                                  I'd hang out with Michigan.
                                                                  To be honest, I would probably be at the Euchre table, as well.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Millennials don’t consider themselves adults until 30 | Daily Mail Online

                                                                    SMH

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Makes sense somewhat considering average age at marriage is consistently increasing.

                                                                      While I certainly consider myself to be an adult, I don't feel settled at all. I'm eager to get married and "start a life."

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by tussin View Post
                                                                        Makes sense somewhat considering average age at marriage is consistently increasing.

                                                                        While I certainly consider myself to be an adult, I don't feel settled at all. I'm eager to get married and "start a life."
                                                                        This isn't about economic recession, sky rocketing student debt, or altered social norms in the aftermath of the boomers sexual revolution. This is about Wizard feeling superior and getting his "le wrong generation" rocks off.

                                                                        Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by tussin View Post
                                                                          Makes sense somewhat considering average age at marriage is consistently increasing.

                                                                          While I certainly consider myself to be an adult, I don't feel settled at all. I'm eager to get married and "start a life."
                                                                          Same. I consider myself an adult. But I'm not in a long term job (hopefully), sadly still call my mom and dad for advice about simple things, and I'm unmarried.

                                                                          Looking forward to being a hubby and dad hopefully relatively soon!
                                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                                            This isn't about economic recession, sky rocketing student debt, or altered social norms in the aftermath of the boomers sexual revolution. This is about Wizard feeling superior and getting his "le wrong generation" rocks off.
                                                                            Who pissed in your cornflakes?

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                              Who pissed in your cornflakes?
                                                                              Are we not doing fun takedowns of our social beliefs anymore?

                                                                              Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                                                Are we not doing fun takedowns of our social beliefs anymore?
                                                                                Didnt you get the IE memo? Millenials and feminists are fair game always.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                                                  Are we not doing fun takedowns of our social beliefs anymore?

                                                                                  Stay that IE privilege, brother!!!!!!



                                                                                  Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Oooooh they are so edgy and original...

                                                                                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg

                                                                                    "Weinberg is the person who coined the saying "Don't trust anyone over 30". The saying exists in several variants, such as "Never trust anybody over 30". Origination of the saying has been wrongly attributed to Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, the Beatles, and others.
                                                                                    Jack Weinberg - Wikipedia
                                                                                    Wikipedia › wiki › Jack_Weinberg
                                                                                    Circa November 1964
                                                                                    Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qjN5uHRIcjM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                                                                      My ship has sailed.

                                                                                      I'm just not sure if it was the Nina, the Pinta or the Santa Maria.




                                                                                      [Unapologetic Boomer, Unrepentant Hippie]
                                                                                      Last edited by dshans; 03-24-2017, 10:57 PM.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Civilization & Discontents: Modern Life Has Its Pitfalls | National Review

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Regarding the recent controversy over Pence's use of the Billy Graham Rule, I thought this recent tweet storm (click through to see the rest) from Damon Linker was insightful:

                                                                                          Last edited by Whiskeyjack; 02-16-2021, 05:27 PM.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58...b00ea3841db52d

                                                                                            A Facebook friend posted this on his wall. What a garbage article that encapsulates why I'm not a fan of most of my generation. Wiz and Whiskey, you might be triggered.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                                                                              This Is Why Our Generation Doesn’t Believe In Settling Down | The Huffington Post

                                                                                              A Facebook friend posted this on his wall. What a garbage article that encapsulates why I'm not a fan of most of my generation. Wiz and Whiskey, you might be triggered.
                                                                                              The author is a sustainability studies major at Furman. She'll be yearning for that picket fence home when she lives in a studio and can't afford both student loan payments and groceries on a barista's income.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "A Requiem for 'Girls'":

                                                                                                The romance between this newspaper and the HBO show “Girls” is somewhat legendary. Between its debut in 2012 and its finale last Sunday, according to some exhaustive data journalism from The Awl, The New York Times published 37 articles about the show, its fans, its creator and star, Lena Dunham, plus her co-stars’ clothes and paintings and workout routines and exotic pets.

                                                                                                Except, fact-check: I made up the exotic pets, and The Awl’s list unaccountably failed to include my own contribution to The Times’s Dunham-mania, a love letter to the show’s flirtations with cultural reaction.

                                                                                                Was some of this coverage excessive? Well, let’s concede that the ratio of thinkpieces (all over the web, not just in this newspaper) to actual viewers was considerably higher for “Girls” than for, say, “Game of Thrones.” Let’s concede that the media loved to talk about the show in part because it was set among young white people in Brooklyn, a demographic just possibly overrepresented among the people who write about pop culture for a living. Let’s concede that Dunham’s peculiar role in electoral politics, as one of the most visible and, um, creative millennial-generation surrogates for Barack Obama and then Hillary Clinton, played some role in the press’s fascination with her show.

                                                                                                But now that we have the show in full, I think the scale of coverage actually holds up quite well — my own small part in it very much included. Indeed, I suspect that “Girls” will be remembered as the most interesting and important television show of the years in which it ran, to which cultural critics will inevitably return when they argue about art and society in the now-vanished era of Obama.

                                                                                                Of course there are different kinds of cultural importance. Because its audience was small and its characters difficult and unpleasant and its material sometimes weird and often gross, “Girls” didn’t have (and didn’t seek) the kind of aspirational influence achieved by its young-hip-bedhopping-urbanite predecessors “Sex and the City” and “Friends.” Nor did it inspire the obsessive viewer love and endless imitators of Golden Age of Television™ dramas like “The Sopranos” and “Mad Men.” It was a niche taste with a niche audience; nothing substantial in American culture or the television industry was altered by its episodic story.

                                                                                                But it was the equal of the prestige dramas and superior to “Friends” and “Sex and the City” as a scripted-acted-shot achievement, and reliably funnier (in a wince-inducing way) than any of them. And as a mirror held up to American culture, it showed something very different than its prestige-TV peers, something equally important and arguably more forward-looking and distinctive.

                                                                                                The typical prestige drama, from “The Sopranos” onward, has been a portrait of patriarchy in extremis, featuring embattled male antiheroes struggling to maintain their authority in a changing world or a collapsing culture. Usually these stories are set somewhere Out There, in landscapes alien to the typical liberal-ish prestige-TV viewer: In flyover country, in copland and gangland, in George R.R. Martin’s Westeros, among Mormon polygamists, on Madison Avenue in the last days of the WASPs.

                                                                                                Tony Soprano pining for the days of Gary Cooper set a tone for all these stories, which then echoed and re-echoed in the Louisiana swamps of “True Detective,” the New Mexican borderlands of “Breaking Bad,” the halls of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Again and again the viewer watched a male protagonist trying to be a breadwinner, paterfamilias, a protector and savior, a Leader of Men; again and again these attempts were presented as dangerously alluring, corrupting, untimely and foredoomed. In certain ways the medieval arc of “Game of Thrones” — in which the noble-but-naďve patriarchy of Ned Stark gives way to the toxic patriarchy of warring kings, with Daenerys Targaryen and her dragons waiting to sweep it all away — distilled the whole prestige-drama project to its fundamental archetypes: nostalgia for male kingship, fear of bad kings, a certain satisfaction at the patriarchy’s inevitable fall.

                                                                                                On “Girls,” though, something very different was going on. The fall of patriarchy had basically happened, the world had irrevocably changed … and nobody knew what to do next.

                                                                                                This (and many other things) distinguished the show’s storytelling from the superficially similar “Sex and the City,” in which the remains of the patriarchy still provided a kind of narrative order. In theory the women of “Sex” prized their freedom and their friendship more than men — but they were also oppressed by and obsessed with toxic bachelors, they still pined for Mr. Big, and they ultimately settled down with decent working-class guys or gorgeous male models or nice Jewish lawyers or Big himself.

                                                                                                But “Girls” was a show in which any kind of confident male authority or presence was simply gone, among most of the older characters as well as among the millennial protagonists. The show’s four girls had mostly absent fathers (the only involved and caring one came out as gay midway through the show) and few Don Draper-esque bosses to contend with. The toxic bachelors they dated were more pathetic than threatening, and the “sensitive” guys still more so; even the most intense relationships they formed were semi-pathological. A few men on the show (the oldest of the younger characters, most notably) exhibited moral decency and some sort of idealism, a few were genuinely sinister — but mostly the male sex seemed adrift, permanently boyish, a bundle of hormonal impulses leagues away from any kind of serious and potent manhood.

                                                                                                Meanwhile the girls themselves were all, to varying degrees, antiheroic: as self-destructive and narcissistic in their way as the embattled patriarchs familiar from other HBO productions. (Though, yes, rather less murderous.)

                                                                                                From the beginning, the unattractiveness of their behavior inspired some queasy responses to the show from liberal and feminist critics, and some celebratory rejoinders about how the freedom to make a mess — sexually and otherwise — is the central freedom that feminism sought to win.

                                                                                                Probably the latter interpretation was closer to the showrunners’ conscious intent. But successful art has a way of slipping its ideological leash, and the striking thing about “Girls” is how the mess it portrayed made a mockery of the official narrative of social liberalism, in which prophylactics and graduate degrees and gender equality are supposed to lead smoothly to health, wealth and high-functioning relationships.

                                                                                                In large ways and small the show deconstructed those assumptions. The characters’ sex lives were not remotely “safe”; they were porn-haunted and self-destructive, a mess of S.T.D. fears and dubiously consensual incidents and sudden marriages and stupid infidelities. (Abortion was sort-of normalized but also linked to narcissism: The only character to actually have an abortion was extraordinarily blasé about it, and then over subsequent episodes revealed as a monster of self-involvement.) Meanwhile the professional world was mostly a series of dead ends and failed experiments, and the idea that sisterhood would conquer all even if relationships with men didn’t work out dissolved as the show continued and its core foursome gradually came apart.

                                                                                                Real adulthood did await for Dunham’s character, Hannah Horvath, at the show’s conclusion. But the form it took was almost too heavy-handed in its traditionalist definition of a woman’s growing-up: an unplanned pregnancy, a baby, the absolute obligations of motherhood trumping the trivialities of freedom.

                                                                                                True, this was motherhood solo, without a mate or male provider. But the male absence felt more like a signifier of masculine failure than feminine empowerment: After a lecture from an older gay man about how large a father’s absence can loom, Hannah tried to involve the father in the baby’s life, and he ducked out pathetically; the offers from other men to help raise the child dissolved, and what remained as the show ends was a kind of informal and fractious matriarchy — Hannah and a friend and her mother off Upstate with her infant son, like a tribe of refugees waiting for civilization to reform.

                                                                                                Of course the real-life civilization they are part of just elected Donald Trump as president, making all those prestige-drama portraits of toxic patriarchy seem quite relevant to our circumstances again, and the travails of life under social liberalism a little less immediately pressing.

                                                                                                But the wheel will turn again, and the relevance of “Girls” will wax as it does. There are many ways to capture our society’s complicated reality; the urban white liberal Brooklynite milieu is indeed, as the show’s haters always stood ready to remind us, a pretty narrow slice of American and Western life.

                                                                                                But then again so is the New Jersey mafia or Madison Avenue in its heyday or the Albuquerque drug trade. If those slices, in their different ways, embody the allure and pathologies of old-school male power, the slice that “Girls” portrayed (with, yes, caricature as well as realism) embodies a stronghold of the egalitarian alternative that cultural liberalism aspires to spread to everyone.

                                                                                                And the genius, and resonance, and staying power of Lena Dunham’s show rests not only on its artistic quality but on its message to its mostly liberal viewers: You do not have this alternative figured out.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lNI07egoefc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Yo Whiskey, Esolen left Providence finally, for Thomas More College.

                                                                                                    Anthony Esolen accepts post at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                                                      <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lNI07egoefc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
                                                                                                      I don't entirely disagree as I've always been a bigger fan of the classics, though I think that video is pretty lazy in its comparisons and in the way it dispenses it's opinion. (The Statute of freaking David versus a piece of art that is only moderately and recently famous for controversy, lots of absolutes used by the speaker, that silly "scientific" graph showing artistic skill taking a nose dive recently)

                                                                                                      A rebuttal, for the sake of it:

                                                                                                      <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/67EKAIY43kg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                                                                                      Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X