A theory on the college campus issues.

[Hermit]

What is the world coming to?!!! This never happened when I was young in the 1960s. We were hard working and disciplined and knew how to fit in, not a bunch of self-entitled, deluded ingrates.

Looks like I forgot to add the sarcasm tag again. Sorry about that, aspies.

[NineBerry]

"Young slut being fucked by not her daddy"

[Forty Two]

Here is one idea concerning what is happening on American and some other countries' college campuses.

Three points- (a) hyper left professoriat, (b) foucoult-ian ideas with pop-psychology bringing in microaggression theory, and (c) students being the ones demanding more speech regulation which resulted essentially from social media - caused a fundamental shift in thinking from the previous generation.

Kids these days!

of course, it's more like "professors these days...", since the first two relate to the professoriat and the dominant philosophical base. I think what the commentator in the video is suggesting is that the teachers are part of the issue causing the strange behavior on college campuses. What seems to be happening is characteristically different than in generations past.

I get what you're saying, and I know. Like, in the 1960s, they were saying "kids these days" while the previous generation was the "Rebel Without a Cause" generation, dealing with the same issues and acting out in the same ways. I get that. The new generation always has less respect and acts crazier than the previous. The difference this go-round, though, is that the students aren't leading a "rebellion", but rather they are leading a reactionary force which seeks less autonomy, more supervision, less independence, more regulation, and less break-away from their parents' restrictive morals and instead they are looking to impose a morality and dogma.

You raise them the best you can. Send them to the best schools. Do everything in your power to ensure they have a bright future in the freest nation in the world, to prosper as upstanding citizens in an orderly society, a land of equal opportunity. And what do they do? They think they know better than their elders. They fill their heads with the wrong ideas. DANGEROUS ideas!!! They think they can change the world overnight. They REBEL against the establishment.

This is the thing - they are not rebelling against the establishment. Their establishment is who they are looking to for rules, controls and regulation of their behaviors.

What is the world coming to?!!! This never happened when I was young in the 1960s. We were hard working and disciplined and knew how to fit in, not a bunch of self-entitled, deluded ingrates.

It didn't - in the 60s, they were counterculture. Free love. Experimentation. Drugs. Sex. Rock n Roll. Now, rock is dead. The kids are against free love, and in favor of rules governing how adults talk to each other. They are imposing their own rule for dances, just like the old "leave a little room for the Holy Spirit" the establishment used to impose. Now they make their own rules.

[Brian Peacock]

'They' are all like, you know... they they they... they.... they....

Come on man - spit it out. Stop describing what you think 'they' are like and pin down your core thesis - for chrissakes and the love of Dog already.

[Forty Two]

'They' are all like, you know... they they they... they.... they....

Come on man - spit it out. Stop describing what you think 'they' are like and pin down your core thesis - for chrissakes and the love of Dog already.

Everyone here, including you, refers to groups of people, communities, classes, etc., by plural pronouns. The difference is, when you don't like the topic, you start pretending that nobody can be referred to in terms of a group. Then it's "everybody's different" and there is no such thing as a "they." Well, if you'll start doing that in your own posts, and never, ever, refer to a group of people as a whole, then I'll do the same. Until then, I'll refer to the college students I'm talking about as a they. Everybody knows that not every single member of a given group behaves according to the generalization. That doesn't invalidate generalizations. I wish it did -- if it automatically invalidated generalizations, then feminists would have to stop referring to "women" as a cohesive group or class, and progressives would have to stop referring to "marginalized groups" and such. I'd be happy to play by that rule, if everybody else will...

The reality is, we can make generalizations about groups, and that's the backbone of most political and social commentary. So, piss off with the faux obtuseness.

[Hermit]

it's more like "professors these days..."

Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, Althusser...

iin the 60s, they were counterculture. Free love. Experimentation. Drugs. Sex. Rock n Roll.

Baader-Meinhof. Red Brigade. Black Panthers. Weather Underground. Japanese Red Army...

You are too young to remember the sixties and seventies. That's OK. Not OK is that you pretend knowing stuff you so obviously have not bothered researching. I bet you never even read up on Aldo Moro, Hanns-Martin Schleyer or the amount of support for violent radicals at that time.



The Youtube clips, articles and comments you regale us with do not amount to evidence that freedom, happiness and the American Way is threatened. They are evidence of unorganised, demented students, teachers and rioters lashing out blindly and without any coordination. They are even less of a threat than the left-wing activists of yore, and look at what happened with them. They were not destroyed by the guardians of civic ideals. Support for them never reached - never even looked like reaching - the critical mass necessary to create a new order, so they just melted away.

Your pompous, sanctimonious tirades are nothing more than the ignorant, emotional outbursts of a panicked, hysterical rightwinger. You are standing on a soap box made of hot air, simultaneously resembling the bloke pictured below.

[Brian Peacock]

'They' are all like, you know... they they they... they.... they....

Come on man - spit it out. Stop describing what you think 'they' are like and pin down your core thesis - for chrissakes and the love of Dog already.

Everyone here, including you, refers to groups of people, communities, classes, etc., by plural pronouns. The difference is, when you don't like the topic, you start pretending that nobody can be referred to in terms of a group. Then it's "everybody's different" and there is no such thing as a "they." Well, if you'll start doing that in your own posts, and never, ever, refer to a group of people as a whole, then I'll do the same. Until then, I'll refer to the college students I'm talking about as a they. Everybody knows that not every single member of a given group behaves according to the generalization. That doesn't invalidate generalizations. I wish it did -- if it automatically invalidated generalizations, then feminists would have to stop referring to "women" as a cohesive group or class, and progressives would have to stop referring to "marginalized groups" and such. I'd be happy to play by that rule, if everybody else will...

The reality is, we can make generalizations about groups, and that's the backbone of most political and social commentary. So, piss off with the faux obtuseness.

So I guess you're not prepared to pin down your core thesis then?

You've let us know who you don't like and what you don't like about them, but is there actually a point beyond the 'I really don't like that'? What threat do the 'professoriat' (a term coined to denote and encompass the entire teaching body of an institution with deliberate political overtones) actually pose beyond their presumed political incorrectness (in the original sense)? Are they corrupting the young or merely indulging them; are they organised and motivated, and if so to what end; or are they simply to be distrusted and denounced as 'intellectuals' in the politically pejorative sense? C'mon. Throw us a bone.

Generalisation are, well, general in nature. They're the broadest of broad categories by definition, but you're generalising from the particular, a form of fallacy which cites a novel example of something-or-other and then applies it as a typifying generality. That's why I picked up on your incessant theys and thems.

[pErvinalia]

Now they make their own rules.

I.e. rebelling against the current order. Thereby making everything you said in the post before that point, as a rebuttal to Hermit, irrelevant.

[pErvinalia]

[pErvinalia]

....

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

...The new generation always has less respect and acts crazier than the previous. The difference this go-round, though, is that the students aren't leading a "rebellion", but rather they are leading a reactionary force which seeks less autonomy, more supervision, less independence, more regulation, and less break-away from their parents' restrictive morals and instead they are looking to impose a morality and dogma...

This would refer to a small group of students, who gain media coverage disproportionate to their numbers.

Sure, when they try to insist on absurd regulations or censorship for rigid PC reasons, they need to be opposed. But they are not representative of the majority who are simply going on with their studies, nor are they likely to make a real impact on society.

[Scot Dutchy]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

[Hermit]

Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

In short, you can always blame the parents for the shortcomings of the next generation. Parents are the chief cause of everything today's enemies of freedom get up to.

Are you listening, Coito?

[Scot Dutchy]

Well what the next generation will be like is a frightening thought. Thank goodness for bicycles as it keeps kids sane and away from their parents. The 'school run' is not part of Dutch society. Kids want to cycle and even today plenty cycle to primary school. We dont have uniforms and all that crap.

[pErvinalia]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

Fairly clueless comment. The cost of housing and education are more relatively now than then, and jobs are more scarce.