Please - the correct term is “Paedocidal-American”.
Seriously though, I had to force myself to finish reading that. And here’s why:
(Bolding mine). The rest of the article was all about how Jones is the real victim here.
I’m all for allowing people to move on with their lives having paid their debt to society for their crimes, but the casual marginalization by the author of what is by any measure a heinous crime – for whatever reasons it may been committed – immediately destroyed all credibility. Whatever other subgroups Jones may belong to, the one that will trump all others in most people’s minds is “child killer”, and while there are legitimate arguments for why Harvard should have accepted Jones, I agree that the diversity one is the most idiotic one by a long way.
Being fair to the author, the trauma is a real thing and it’s pretty clear that that trauma led to her murdering her son. And NYU did actually admit her, and it doesn’t look like it created too much of a furor, thus making Harvard’s fears look unfounded, although you can never underestimate the outrage machine.
But where she goes wrong is in calling Harvard’s commitment to diversity a farce, and in going too far with the victim/crime/redemption story. She is a victim, but most victims manage not to murder their children. I have a friend whose children ALL came from rape and she hasn’t killed any of them. She loves them in fact. Also, she is not redeemed. IMO, it takes more than writing a really good history thesis to be redeemed for murdering your child. Maybe dying to save another child might pull that off.
The Harvard bigwigs’ own words about why they rejected this student, that they were afraid of the reaction of conservative media, is well worth criticizing. Based on Stauffer’s words, the fact that she was a minority was part of the reason they rescinded the accpetance, and that’s pretty awful.
If Harvard’s policy really is that, in some circumstances, being black makes it less likely that they will accept a student, then yes, their commitment to diversity can reasonably be criticized as a farce.
In two ways: one, for succumbing to the outrage machine, and two, for THAT being their worry, rather than real concerns with admitting a child killer. I’d be willing to bet they wouldn’t admit someone who served their time for a hate crime, no matter how remorseful.
There’s a separate thread on this one, but basically: Hobby Lobby was selling some cotton plant twigs with raw cotton attached, stuck in a bottle, as a decoration. One bright spark made the mental leap that cotton=slavery=racism and had a snit. Internet ensued.
I don’t think that’s liberal, more fodder for the “social justice BS” thread. Or perhaps that political correctness thread I started that everyone hates.
Newsweekis suggesting that Jennifer Lawrence is a target of the alt-right because they’re mad at a scene that mocks Christians. Actually, National Review lists lots of reasons why the film is such a mother! to watch, and it tanked at the box office anyway. Breitbartassumed its usual anti-lamestream media stance, but actually gave some valid reasons why Jennifer Lawrence is Box Office Poison. Neither source goes into specifics about the nature of the Christian mockery, but both articles place more emphasis on the faulty filmmaking.
So, Newsweek starts off making Lawrence look like an innocent alt-right target, but it turns out her movie sucks anyway and she’s a bad person for disrespecting Hawaiian gods. This confuses me.
Jennifer Lawrence is just fine, but Hollywood may have overestimated her marketability based on the success of Hunger Games, which isn’t all that unusual. But she’s probably not a regular leading lady.
I guess that to the extent this WAS a SLI(otd), the stupidity lay in delivering his critique via tweet rather than a full opinion piece. Nuance and complex topics don’t tend to translate well in the 140-character format.
That’s quite an argument that has nothing to do with independent contractors. The kid is not an employee of the clients who hire him to mow their lawns. He runs his own business and sets his own rates for services. What he earns from that service is his business not his clients’. Is it a violation of minimum wage laws if a business owner donates his services? Is it a violation if a small business owner forgoes a salary and cycles all revenue back into the business?
Now, if you want to make the argument that he’s terrible businessman who doesn’t know how to set rates that sustain his business or pay back his investors, you might actually be on to something. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise for a Trumpet, or the son of one, amirite?
I really hate to bust your bubble, Procrustus, but we have one. As opposed to the batshit-crazy woman you people tried to get elected, and opposed to the massively incompetent President that you did succeed in electing for the preceding two terms.
Y’all really need to deal with the fact that you didn’t get your lollipop last election and stop crying and whining 24/7 about it.
He’s neither sane nor competent, and he hates America, to boot. Your failure to recognize these facts is another of the myriad* factors that make you the perennial winner of the “stupidest Doper” title.
