Dr. Hurd: Have American College Campuses Gone Truly Bonkers?

Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago to Culture
10 comments | Share | Flag

"You might think that abstract ideas in philosophy (or even psychology) have little relevance to daily life, or the wider society. But if you agree that our social and cultural/political institutions appear to be going mad, then look at where most of these trends start: American campuses. Keep in mind that most of our high level political and government officials (including the current president) are the ones who have succeeded in such crazy environments. What does this say about them?"
SOURCE URL: https://drhurd.com/55282/#.Vc4AP0MXvp0.facebook


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
    I'm not sure that I can agree that it started on the campuses. I think it started with the socialists of the early 20th century realizing that revolution wasn't possible in the US. They then set the goals of gaining acceptance and positions in the bureaucracies of Wilson and FDR, and at the same time took a second path into academia and popular culture, particularly with Wilson's help. Then the big push into universities began in the 50's and into the 60's. I think what we're seeing today is the results of that effort.

    I think what all of the success of the political and government officials as well as those in think tanks, foundations, and other institutions is really a reflection of two things. One is of course their raising and early education (indoctrination), but also being taught that they are meant to rule and that the means are not important, that the rest of us are meant to be their inferiors. I think many of them are psychopaths, if not from biological/mental causes, from indoctrination and training.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
    " it’s crucially important to care about what others think, because consensus and group identity/reality (by postmodern philosophy) determine what’s true and what’s right."
    I have on rare occasion observed this wrongheaded view. I hope it's not as widespread as the author says.

    Regarding "microagressions", if that just means little rude things people do, they probably never will go away. It's a good idea IMHO to avoid doing them and instead come out directly with our problems with others. Being passive-aggressive or micro-aggressive is cowardly, but most people have fallen into the trap on occasion. That means we all will probably be the target of these aggressions at some point. Tolerance of human foibles is virtue, but that's not the same as accepting them.

    I think they're right to say avoid intentionally poking someone's past traumas but wrong to make a big deal of it. Most of this could be crudly summarized with Wheaton's law.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago
      The trick is that the microaggressions are not aggressions at all, they are statements that annoy the listener. By calling them aggressions they are equated to violence to justify the use of force to stop the person from saying things you don't want them to.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
        "microaggressions are not aggressions at all, they are statements that annoy the listener."
        This reminds me of in common use selfishness can mean caring about your self or wanting to steal. Aggressive can mean using force, being assertive, or being annoying. I often hear people say they are being "aggressive" (in a good way) about trying to win an engineering project.

        I agree, though, that I wouldn't call a rude behavior aggressive unless it involves getting in someone face. Maybe I would call it hostile. In any case, I see nothing hostile, impolite, etc about saying there's great opportunity in the US or the most qualified person should get the job. They are truisms.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        annoy the engager like a burr in your heel. I'll give you a micro-aggression. Engaging with someone who is polite all day long and completely ignores any knowledge you give them, to come back another day with the same arguments as if they didn't hear a word you say. I call that a disrupt er. poking at past traumas my butt
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago
          If you think that someone you are arguing with isn't paying attention to your arguments, ask yourself if you are paying attention to theirs. If your entire goal is to convince the other person with no possibility of being convinced yourself then who is being obstinate?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 3 months ago
    Hopefully the following statement isn't a "microaggression". Maybe this is why we can't find any sign of intelligent life "Out There." Species gain intelligence because of a tried and true system, but then when it reaches a point where it has no predators it becomes overwhelmed with members in this category.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
    "The list of offensive statements included: 'America is the land of opportunity' and 'I believe the most qualified person should get the job.' "
    I thought most everyone accepted those statements. I certainly do. I can't even imagine how they're aggressive or offensive in any way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo