More muddle-headedness from the up-and-coming academic elite. My latest in the Geller Report:
In an article published in the Stanford Review last Wednesday entitled “A Way Forward For Cardinal Conversations,” Stanford University student Andrew Ziperski wrote this:
My primary piece of advice to the administration is simple yet essential: those who are invited to speak as part of the Conversations must be provocative, and they must make us uncomfortable. This does not mean, of course, that speakers whose primary (or only) goal is provocation ought to be invited; people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Robert Spencer add no value to a campus like ours, and I would strongly oppose an invitation extended to them or those who employ their tactics.
My primary (or only) goal is “provocation”? Only if the truth provokes you, as it does so many in the totalitarian indoctrination camp that Stanford and most other American universities have become. I challenge Andrew Ziperski to find one untruth in anything I’ve ever said or written about Islam. He thinks that the truth is “provocation” because he has been so relentlessly bombarded with lies from every quarter that he was told to trust and learn from that he now thinks, like the well-programmed bot that he is, that a reasoned and documented presentation of unwelcome truths is “provocation.”
For the Andrew Ziperskis of the world, and universities and colleges today are turning them out by the gross, any perspective that challenges the Leftist worldview is a “provocation.” He has been taught, and he has dutifully learned, that to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, gays and others is “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.” He can without any doubt recite the fake news “fact” that right-wing Christian terrorists are more of a threat in the U.S. than Islamic terrorists. He is almost certainly convinced that America and Israel are the primary villains on the international stage today.
In fact, every last one of Andrew Ziperski’s political positions are abundantly clear and can be articulated down to the last syllable by someone who, like me, has never met him, but who is deeply familiar with the propaganda that passes for education at Stanford and other universities today. What is even worse is that in the article in which he dismisses my work (which he undoubtedly has not read), he is actually calling on Stanford to feature speakers that don’t all march in the Left’s totalitarian lockstep. He acknowledges the students’ need to “feel safe” – a nod to the current Left-fascist tactic of shutting down dissent on the spurious grounds that it “endangers” Leftist students – but still hopes that university officials will “bring thoughtful, provocative speakers to Stanford in the years ahead.”
Wait, what? “Provocative” speakers? So Andrew Ziperski, a student at one of the nation’s elite universities, wants “provocative” speakers, but not ones, in his judgement, “whose primary (or only) goal is provocation.” So young Andrew wants to be provoked, but not by those whose goal is provocation. If your goal is something else, but you end up provoking Andrew, that’s all to the good. But if your goal is provocation and you provoke the young scholar, that adds no value to a campus like Stanford.
This woolly-headed thinking is what Stanford and other universities turn out these days. Andrew Ziperski and his peers aren’t taught how to evaluate arguments on their own merits. They are abjectly incapable of judging the truth or falsehood of any given proposition; they can only examine them for “racism” and “bigotry” and accept or dismiss them on that basis. They are, therefore, simply slaves of the Leftists who have indoctrinated them and told them what “racism” and “bigotry” are.
But unfortunately for young Ziperski, reality is reality despite the lies he has imbibed and the fantasies he has embraced. Jihad violence and Sharia oppression are real, and the “Islamophobia” he so hates and fears isn’t. The truths I have told are likely to confront this young man and his fellow sheep sooner or later, at a time when it will likely be too late for them to realize that they have been lied to and change course. But at least he can comfort himself in those dark days with the fact that he didn’t allow himself to be provoked by those whose goal was provocation.
Steve says
His world is filled with, happy, dhimmis. For now.
mortimer says
His world is filled with FEELINGS !!!
Leftist students at Stanford are unconcerned with FACTS … it’s ALL about FEELINGS !!!
They appeal to three main fallacies :
1) Fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance:
since there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true.
2) Fallacy of the Appeal to Self-evident Truth:
The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is “self-evident.” People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence.
3) Fallacy of ‘Truthiness’ (feelings over fact) :
Truthiness is something you FEEL is true, even if it isn’t supported by fact. Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively and SPONTANEOUSLY … “from the gut” or because it “feels right” … without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, mental effort or facts.
It’s all about your FEELINGS, isn’t it, Andrew? Why don’t you debate Robert Spencer if you are so COCKSURE? But, of course, you’re a charlatan and coward and would shrivel in a debate, wouldn’t you, Andrew?
mortimer says
Responses to the Fallacies of Liperski and his Snowflake Cohorts:
1) By appealing to ignorance, the Stanford COMPLIANCE CADRES take a lazy approach. It would take a small effort for students to simply CHECK THE FACTS by reading Robert Spencer’s books, articles, debates and speeches, but they refuse to check the facts. It is easy to verify that Robert Spencer is a supporter of universal human rights, and THAT contradicts the Leftist CANARD that he is intolerant. The Leftists resolve this problem by shouting louder and staying away from evidence that contradicts their assertion. They appeal to a SELF-IMPOSED ignorance.
2) By appealing to ‘self-evident truth’, Stanford students must constantly repeat the false assertion that Robert Spencer is an enemy and a bigot, even when no evidence from any of his 17 books or thousands of articles can be adduced to support the false assertions.
3) By appealing to ‘truthiness’, students at Stanford show they are intellectually incompetent and/or lazy. These students simply focus on their feelings and subjectively work themselves up over a perceived wrong that has never occurred. In so doing, they are merely making a straw man, calling it ‘Robert Spencer’ and then hanging him in effigy. The real Robert Spencer has no resemblance to the straw man.
Stanford students may not find the tedious search for FACTS very much fun, but that is the reason they are supposedly at university… to SEARCH FOR FACTS and not to play childish, emotional games.
Frederick King says
The leftists must be hoping for islamic suicide bombers somewhere along the line in the march to the new world order.
tedh754 says
Students need to “feel safe.” You would think they were Jews being forced to attend rallies in 1930’s Nuremburg.
mortimer says
No, 754, these Stanford students are equivalent of the Brown Shirts in 1930, who attacked college professors who disagreed with Nazism and made it impossible for them to teach.
RonaldB says
A debate between twiddledee and twiddledum is about the greatest provocation these wilting snowflakes can handle.
https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/tweedledee.jpg
Mirren10 says
You’re indulging in fattophobia. I don’t feel safe. Waaah ! 🙁
mortimer says
Agreeing with RB. They are truly ‘snowflakes’, intellectually lazy, and Liperski is a wimp who can’t debate with anyone … he is a craven coward who runs away.
gravenimage says
Stanford Student Claims Robert Spencer’s “Primary or Only Goal is Provocation,” Then Demands “Provocative” Speakers
………………………
So now trying to prevent our being raped and murdered or forced to live under Shari’ah law is “provocation”? What a tool…
Mirren10 says
”…people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Robert Spencer add no value to a campus like ours, and I would strongly oppose an invitation extended to them or those who employ their tactics.”
What he *really** means is that Robert Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos are both extremely intelligent, and formidable debaters, sticking to facts and logic. No wonder this pathetic little wanker is too terrified to listen to them. Not at all what he’s used to.
He wants to be ‘provoked’, but not **too** much, just a little tickle, so he can feel what a brave boy he is, listening to unorthodoxy (!) But actually listening to a factual, logic based argument would be a bridge too far, it might actually get some of his brain cells working, and that would *hurt* !
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
+2
Andrew Liperski wants to ‘provoke’ conservatives and comfort the Globalist Leftist, because he considers that Stanford U. belongs to them.
This is nothing but the intolerant imposition of a regimented IDEOLOGY upon all staff and all students. Heretics will be ‘PROVOKED’ out the door by LIperski.
How is Liperski’s program of thought control and information control different from those of the old USSR?
It is clear Liperski is asking for the abolition of the First Amendment.
Wellington says
+3
Ole Pederson says
but of course they must not say anything we do not expect them to say.
We cannot let facts change our poitically correct campus-myth opinions!
Kepha says
I loved study. I loved learning the Chinese language decently and introductions to range of knowledge from Chemistry to Tudor and Stuart Britain when I was an undergrad; I loved getting a handle on a Christian theological tradition (and that meant lots of Western intellectual history) and biblical languages as a divinity student. I loved my Ph.D. studies as well.
However, when I see colleges and universities leading a charge to dhimmify America and earnestly struggle to de-gender the English language lest a bunch of narrow-minded and provincial radical feminists and transsexuals feel excluded, I have concluded that if someone own’s a good business that needs help and someone to pass it on to, train your young adult kids on the job and forget about the radical cesspool that American academia has become, unless, perhaps, for studies in the STEM disciplines. For liberal studies and languages, I suspect you could probably pull together a language or history class in a church basement. A group of lawyers could probably train some people in their offices well enough to pass bar exams, too.
mortimer says
Thanks, Kepha, I like your post. You seem to be asking for ‘alternate universities’, but the Leftists are trying to blacklist alternate colleges as well ! They are HERETICS and WITCHES to be burnt in the Leftist Gulags!!!
Wellington says
Great post, Kepha.
On the specific matter of law, law school is a total scam. It’s virtually worthless. Lawyers should still be trained the way Andy Jackson and Abe Lincoln were, i.e., apprentice yourself to a law firm, do the nuts and bolts work like writing briefs for a couple of years, all the while studying theory on your own, and thereafter take the law board exam.
I learned more in the six-weeks law board study courses than I did in three years of law school. Not even a close call and I think the VAST majority of fellow lawyers would agree with me here (I especially appreciated all the little tricks the intensive six-weeks law board courses teach you, for instance when you come across the property law Rule against Perpetuites you should immediately guess at the answer and move on to the next multiple choice question because you have about a 90% chance of getting it wrong no matter how much time you take to study said question so why waste time on it).
Like so much else in life, law school is a phony. Far worse in this “category” is Islam posing as a respectable religion. Anyway, fine comment, Kepha.
James Lincoln says
Kepha,
Excellent post – my compliments.
Stanford University used to be a top rate university – back in the day.
Agree, today, unless you are studying a STEM major at Stanford, you are literally throwing your money away.
On top of that, a typical liberal arts student at Stanford will end up becoming brainwashed by the far left. Sad.
gravenimage says
Up until quite recently Stanford was also pretty conservative for a university.
FYI says
He needs to stay in his Safe Space ..with crayons,pillows,lots of bubble wrap,no sharp edges and no trigger words.
Snowflakes melt in the sun:
it is probably best for sensitive students to stay indoors.
The real world is so dangerous.
It is easier to live in a fantasy land in denial of reality like so many students and academics do.
Wellington says
Just one more example of how higher education in America has become lower education in America. In fact, it’s even difficult to dignify what has happened to the vast majority of universities and colleges in the US with the term, “education.” They are now centers not of education but of indoctrination. It’s “1984” and “Animal Farm” come to life on campuses aplenty in the American Republic.
This spells heaps of trouble and with no end in sight. God, how I have nothing but contempt for the hypocrites on the Left who extol freedom while actually crushing it. And they’re crybabies too, true snowflakes, and few human beings are more contemptible than those who can dish it out but can’t take it. Coming foremost to mind here are two groups—Western Leftists and Muslims.
Mirren10 says
”Just one more example of how higher education in America has become lower education in America.”
Not just America, Wellington, but the UK, and most of the Western so called ‘intelligentsia’. It is truly terrifying how logical thought, facts, and intelligent discussion and debate has become, in so many quarters, ‘hate speech’, to be condemned without any thought whatsoever. Orwell got it right. Although I difffer from him in many respects.
As you probably know, I am a retired teacher, but I occasionally do a little A level work on line. (Not sure what the American equivalent of A level is). Anyway, one of my students submitted to me an essay on Ghandi, positing that he was a major factor in the destruction of the Raj, and that this was a *good* thing, and how wonderful Ghandi was, blah, blah, blah.
My critique on his essay pointed out several facts he had not included, and also pointed out that Gandhi’s MO would never have been tolerated in a totalitarian government,( he would have been summarily hanged) whilst in the ‘evil wicked Raj’ he was quite safe from retribution in the nature of torture, and death for what he was doing.
I was told I was a racist colonialist, and if ”he had any idea” that I was such an opprobious person, he would ”never have subjected himself to such racist shit”. . 🙂 I simply replied that if he was incapable of processing facts or replying to a factual logic based argument, then he was a fool, and he was consorting with fools, and I had better uses of my time than to continue to tutor a fool.
What worries me is that there are *so many* of these poor, pathetic idiots who *refuse* deliberately, and knowingly to engage their brains, * at all*. Ay di mi. Sorryb about the rant ! 🙂
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Mirren. And not at all did I think you were ranting; you were just conveying the way things are.
So sad, but so typical, what you related about Gandhi and those who foolishly admire this “sorcerer’s apprentice” a la Mickey Mouse. Yep, show me an admirer of Gandhi and I’ll show you a fool, so very often an intolerant and self-righteous fool—like the one you had to deal with.
Yep, Gandhi is a barometer of a person’s worth as Obama and Pope Francis are, i.e., to the extent that a person admires them, directly proportional to that extent is that person a clueless individual.
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. Most everywhere anymore. Take care, my friend.
gravenimage says
Grim story, Mirren–but I can’t say I am surprised.
gravenimage says
Good exchange, Wellington and Mirren.
Lydia Church says
Another oblivious brownshirt…
whose critical thinking bites the dust.
mortimer says
+1
Dapto says
Stanfords part of the SOros NAzi project that’s designed to enslave you all
dan christensen says
It is a privilege of any Stanford University student, including Andrew Ziperski to be young and stupid, later on his privilege embodies to be stupid only.
Alan Langley (@Alan_L_01) says
That university nitwit Ziperski most probably confused ‘Robert’ with ‘Richard’ Spencer. His reference to Milo Yiannopoulos in the same paragraph would tend to support this.
It would be very easy for an Arts student to confuse the two names. Both begin with ‘R’.
The Crusader says
This kid must be one of those Antifa supporters.
Gordon Miller says
It’s hard for me to accept that Robert Spenser is a provocateur. He simply emits facts. Is that provocative?
gravenimage says
To some people it is…