I’m really fucking old. I went to school way back in the 20th century….we didn’t even have computers. We were forced to actually ask girls out in person while looking them in the eyes. Can you imagine that shit? Unbelievable!
You know, I thought it was the launch of the iPhone... but damn... 2007 was also the year smoking bans really gained traction (Paris of all places is why I pick 2007 as “the year” smoking died).
2004 it happened in pubs. I just|missed experiencing real pubs in Ireland and complained to my friend about it when we were traveling on the west coast. We got into a discussion about the smoking ban and then it was a knock-down drag out argument.
I was basically, “let the market decide”—if there’s a demand, then non-smoking restaurants/bars will crop up and you can avoid the smoking ones. She, on the other hand, was claiming that the ban will be better for “society” and her health insurance rates. (Mind you, I had already quit smoking at that point.)
It really became heated and I swear that if we hadn’t been traveling and reliant on each other and on our self-assumptions that we were good people, we would have never talked to each other again after that. She really became crazed over this idea of SOCIAL obligation and HER rates, like something took over her mind.
I really hate “society” and “health.” So antisocial and unhealthy.
Yeah, I've never liked cigarette smoking, but the campaign against it in bars always bugged me. Being a bartender was never a job where people were all-that-fastidious about health--felt to me like a tiny minority ruined it for everyone. Without the smoker here and there, something changed with bars and pubs. Some of the best "bar characters" were folks who drank a bit, smoked a bit, etc.
Very true. My ex-nazi-friend was all about making sure no one could smoke. I was all for personal decisions. --- Here's the best part, she smoked as a teen, her mom and dad smoked. I never smoked, my Dad did and my Mom did, but quit when I was very young.
I feel like I've been butting my head against this my entire life. Everything fun is made illegal, out of an abundance of caution, for our safety. Lest someone get hurt, no one is allowed to do anything. Or say anything. Or even think anything. And every time they prohibit one thing, something else becomes mandatory.
It's the war on fun, so I guess we're the partyhideen.
Most of the things I used to do for fun when I was a kid (not long ago) are now heavily regulated. Radio controlled planes just to name one example. I have a number of challenging hobbies and many of them require a license or permit. I have jokingly suggested that an everything license be developed that certifies the holder for everything.
Ultimately breaking rules is the only option to pursue some interests.
I can't remember where I read it, but I read it last year: where did "an abundance of caution" come from? It predates COVID in the lexicon, but during COVID it became practically impossible to hear the word "caution" without its prefacing by "an abundance of".
How about we don't have an abundance of caution anymore? How about we have a tad or a smidgen or - in the case of base jumping or commercial aviation - sufficient caution? How about, the rest of the time, we have abundant freedom and abundant fun?
I had just finished Jonathan Haidts “The Coddling of the American Mind”, which confronts the perils of “safteyism” and thought “we” (old school liberals) were getting back on the right path, and that the nonsense of the Halloween Panic of Yale, Evergreen College “anti white day” would be regarded as shameful footnotes long forgotten within 5 years, at the beginning of 2020.
When you're not allowed to have fun by going to parties and making friends doing interesting stuff, the only thing left to do for fun is to join mobs and attack the heretics.
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022Liked by Chris Bray
What lies beneath the administration's drive to eliminate diversity of thought, manner, custom, tradition and activity is a massive fear of ethnic, religious, and racial division and animosity. The administration believes deeply that people do not reliably "just get along," that underneath the veneer of civility there is a raging monster caged up, waiting to explode. In other words, the administration believes that a truly multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial society is an impossibility.
I'm not sure this is the case, that they believe the monster needs to be caged because of diversity. I think it's because they view certain groups as troublesome - Whites, basically - and that they just need to get with the program for it to work. In other words I don't think it's a fear that disparate groups *can't* get along, but that certain groups *don't* get along, and if only they would, it'd be fine.
Yeah, this is probably the more correct view of the current situation.
But, I think the list of "troublesome groups" will evolve in their minds over the course of years. If it's whites now, it will be people of color who express agreement with Republican or conservative policies next.
And, when that vast number of Stanford administrators eventually becomes majority people of color (as opposed to majority white liberals), freedom of thought will probably be restored, because administrators of color will be allowed to embrace any opinion, because they cannot be racist by definition (unless they are deemed "the Black face of white supremacy"). Then we'll see a more open and robust discussion of the issues.
But the current, old, scared, hyper idealistic, white liberal leadership has to die off or retire first. White liberal leadership is absolutely scared to death of offending people of color and the LQBTQ+ because it could cost them their jobs.
Well, that's just my muddled thinking. I could be wrong.
No, I really doubt that the "majority POC" will embrace freedom of thought. They'll have grown up with the current regime of thought control, and won't consider breaking out of it.
The 'liberal' party had 'open' minds and so were naturally where the communists went first. It was impossible for them to make gains among conservative people who knew what they believed and why.
Above the idiotic state mandated helicopter parenting which seeks to stamp out any form of free thinking, there is zero pushback. The phenomena of turning kids into Borg-like drones where it is accepted is something I haven't been able to wrap my head around for over a decade. Gone is the age old attitude of "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me". Now we are left with kids who accept all the drivel of government approved social engineering without any form of questioning the policies.
I never realized that when I watched and laughed at Idiocracy, that society would have taken that satirical look at a dystopia future and instead of pondering its message ,used it as a blueprint for societal standard operating procedure.
It wasn't the ban of smoking, which started back in the mid 1990s, not early 2000s which jump started the downfall. It was the push for ridding the world of bullying amongst children, which became a policy in schools in the late 1970s. Go read the book Dumbing It Down. It lays out the blueprint for turning children into automatons by crushing the age old method which establishes civilization's natural pecking order.
Not only is "Fuck you I don't do what you tell me" dead, but Rage Against The Machine demands vaxx passes for anyone who wants to hear them perform it.
The Mommy State has been encroaching for a long time, but the smoking bans were a huge step forward in normalizing the idea that public health bureaucrats can order everyone around and make up whatever bullshit they want to justify it.
I was fortunate to attend Stanford in the late 70’s, early 80’s. It was a great institution, and that was a golden era for student life in retrospect. I’ve been ashamed of Stanford’s wokeness for some time, notwithstanding the Hoover Institution’s scholarship. But I had no idea that it had become so East Germany, 1955. Do not give the little grey fascist administrators money. Do not donate to your alma maters until this shit is reversed. These hypocrites respond to pressure. They are cowards and paper tigers. They deserve our contempt, not our support. Put the little fake Commie professors and their half baked manifestos back in the corner where they belong. This is not America.
None is none. Stick to it. Alas, that might even mean no donations to a good org like Hoover that's linked to Stanford. Because, trust me, if Stanford will go this much to pot, its evil admin class will likely eventually win control over whatever money you send to Hoover.
There are just soooo many choice quotes there, better than any satirical piece I could dream:
"I know that until I saw women working at Outward Bound and NOLS, I didn’t think I could do that — I couldn’t be an instructor,” Lowley said. “Representation is going to be really important.”
(I mean sure, women have traveled to space, conquered Mount Everest, been Prime Minister of the UK, sat on the Supreme Court, won the Nobel Prize - but an outdoor instructor? Come on, the glass ceiling can only be lowered so far!!!)
_______________
“invite more folks who have not necessarily been exposed” to the outdoors and allow everyone to “start to really appreciate the ways in which people experience the outdoors in ways that are not that classic model.”
(What fucking universe do these people live in? Are they Morlocks? The "outdoors" is some esoteric unknown territory, only rumored to exist? What the fuck is the "Classic model" of the outdoors?)
____________
“How can people realize that there are a lot of people of different backgrounds, different races, different genders, different identities, doing really cool stuff in your backyard?” Acceta asked.
(Note that Alex Acceta is a grown ass man in his 50's spouting and regurgitating this nonsense.)
___________
"Bear hopes that the themed residence will help people view simpler, less-strenuous activities as a healthy, more-inclusive alternative to what he calls “conquest-based” activities. Some of those simpler activities, to him, include playing frisbee, painting outdoors or going for dish hikes or walks around campus."
(The obvious question here is - should they jump straight to frisbee? Won't that be too much too fast? Could they at least start with something less demanding? Perhaps begin by just sitting outside for a few minutes?)
_______________
"This article has been updated to more accurately reflect Eric Bear’s views on outdoor activities. It has also been updated to reflect that Eric Bear applied to be a resident assistant for Outdoor House next year. The Daily regrets this error."
(I'm half tempted to use the wayback machine to find out what possible way they could framed Bear's comments to make him call them up and say "NO! You misrepresented me!")
Srsly, what's to stop students from self organizing an actual Outdoor House??? The hell are these kids doing??? It's Stanford ffs. Use daddy's money to build your own Outdoor House. Srsly I give no quarter for these kids.
I certainly hope so. If Stanford is reinventing itself as a model for the transhumanist future, counterculture students should stake their claim to the complete opposite of that. What is the ultra very human future? Imagine what THAT would be, kids. It's on you.
Stanford was once better. I graduated in 1990. In my senior year, my roommate taught me to drive a stick (on his car!) while we drove to the Grand Canyon for spring break, camped at the bottom, and walked up the next day. No Outdoor House needed. Now we would probably need a notarized letter from our parents!
Imagine letting kids go hiking and camping without ensuring they they're doing so in fully inclusive, diverse groups and using the time to discuss the finer points of intersectional equity while challenging norms of heterocispatriarchical white supremacy.
Two responses: 1. Yes, this sucks, and I can feel her pain as someone who enjoyed my education free of this kind of programming. 2. If Stanford is a school that requires smarts to get into, figure it out, be part of the resistance. Sure, they've destroyed something. OK, see it as a challenge, build something different back. Otherwise, drop out. Go somewhere else and make something. Mourning and living in this environment are two different things.
I’m so fucking happy I went to college at the turn of the millennium when we could still smoke in dorms.
Bonus my engineering degree only cost 40k.
I’m really fucking old. I went to school way back in the 20th century….we didn’t even have computers. We were forced to actually ask girls out in person while looking them in the eyes. Can you imagine that shit? Unbelievable!
IMPOSSIBLE
My roommate brought a computer to school freshman year (1997) and I was like “you fucking nerd”
In his defense he did bring an ounce of good bud too.
Very unsafe. The girl often, in words and using her voice and everything, said no. Right to you.
Actually, the public smoking ban was the start of all this . . . .
You know, I thought it was the launch of the iPhone... but damn... 2007 was also the year smoking bans really gained traction (Paris of all places is why I pick 2007 as “the year” smoking died).
2004 it happened in pubs. I just|missed experiencing real pubs in Ireland and complained to my friend about it when we were traveling on the west coast. We got into a discussion about the smoking ban and then it was a knock-down drag out argument.
I was basically, “let the market decide”—if there’s a demand, then non-smoking restaurants/bars will crop up and you can avoid the smoking ones. She, on the other hand, was claiming that the ban will be better for “society” and her health insurance rates. (Mind you, I had already quit smoking at that point.)
It really became heated and I swear that if we hadn’t been traveling and reliant on each other and on our self-assumptions that we were good people, we would have never talked to each other again after that. She really became crazed over this idea of SOCIAL obligation and HER rates, like something took over her mind.
I really hate “society” and “health.” So antisocial and unhealthy.
Yeah, I've never liked cigarette smoking, but the campaign against it in bars always bugged me. Being a bartender was never a job where people were all-that-fastidious about health--felt to me like a tiny minority ruined it for everyone. Without the smoker here and there, something changed with bars and pubs. Some of the best "bar characters" were folks who drank a bit, smoked a bit, etc.
And, yeah. I honestly thought Parisians would not let that happen.
Guess ‘the great breaking down’ had already started to happen there.
Very true. My ex-nazi-friend was all about making sure no one could smoke. I was all for personal decisions. --- Here's the best part, she smoked as a teen, her mom and dad smoked. I never smoked, my Dad did and my Mom did, but quit when I was very young.
My God that’s fucking depressing.
I feel like I've been butting my head against this my entire life. Everything fun is made illegal, out of an abundance of caution, for our safety. Lest someone get hurt, no one is allowed to do anything. Or say anything. Or even think anything. And every time they prohibit one thing, something else becomes mandatory.
It's the war on fun, so I guess we're the partyhideen.
Same. And it's accelerating.
Most of the things I used to do for fun when I was a kid (not long ago) are now heavily regulated. Radio controlled planes just to name one example. I have a number of challenging hobbies and many of them require a license or permit. I have jokingly suggested that an everything license be developed that certifies the holder for everything.
Ultimately breaking rules is the only option to pursue some interests.
GO FOR IT!
I can't remember where I read it, but I read it last year: where did "an abundance of caution" come from? It predates COVID in the lexicon, but during COVID it became practically impossible to hear the word "caution" without its prefacing by "an abundance of".
How about we don't have an abundance of caution anymore? How about we have a tad or a smidgen or - in the case of base jumping or commercial aviation - sufficient caution? How about, the rest of the time, we have abundant freedom and abundant fun?
**literally shaking**
How about we all use common sense? I think that’s in short supply these days, especially among “progressives.”
It's a hateful phrase to be sure. The 21st century equivalent of Arbeit Macht Frei.
Frankly, I think it's time we started saying "Safety Last".
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/safety-last
Rules are made to be broken. Today I stuck two of my “I DID THAT” Biden stickers on sign posts. I have a hundred more. And…I did that!
So many options: menus, price tags, real estate For Sale signs, of course gas pumps, car dealership price signs... Have fun!
👏👍🥳
I saw one as I filled up my tank today. Love it!
I had just finished Jonathan Haidts “The Coddling of the American Mind”, which confronts the perils of “safteyism” and thought “we” (old school liberals) were getting back on the right path, and that the nonsense of the Halloween Panic of Yale, Evergreen College “anti white day” would be regarded as shameful footnotes long forgotten within 5 years, at the beginning of 2020.
Holy shit was I wrong.
When you're not allowed to have fun by going to parties and making friends doing interesting stuff, the only thing left to do for fun is to join mobs and attack the heretics.
Except our betters can have any fun they want. Unfortunately, a lot of their “fun” includes children and underage females.
What lies beneath the administration's drive to eliminate diversity of thought, manner, custom, tradition and activity is a massive fear of ethnic, religious, and racial division and animosity. The administration believes deeply that people do not reliably "just get along," that underneath the veneer of civility there is a raging monster caged up, waiting to explode. In other words, the administration believes that a truly multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial society is an impossibility.
I'm not sure this is the case, that they believe the monster needs to be caged because of diversity. I think it's because they view certain groups as troublesome - Whites, basically - and that they just need to get with the program for it to work. In other words I don't think it's a fear that disparate groups *can't* get along, but that certain groups *don't* get along, and if only they would, it'd be fine.
Yeah, this is probably the more correct view of the current situation.
But, I think the list of "troublesome groups" will evolve in their minds over the course of years. If it's whites now, it will be people of color who express agreement with Republican or conservative policies next.
And, when that vast number of Stanford administrators eventually becomes majority people of color (as opposed to majority white liberals), freedom of thought will probably be restored, because administrators of color will be allowed to embrace any opinion, because they cannot be racist by definition (unless they are deemed "the Black face of white supremacy"). Then we'll see a more open and robust discussion of the issues.
But the current, old, scared, hyper idealistic, white liberal leadership has to die off or retire first. White liberal leadership is absolutely scared to death of offending people of color and the LQBTQ+ because it could cost them their jobs.
Well, that's just my muddled thinking. I could be wrong.
No, I really doubt that the "majority POC" will embrace freedom of thought. They'll have grown up with the current regime of thought control, and won't consider breaking out of it.
“...unmarked houses with names like “550,” “680,” and “675” in arbitrary groupings...”. Reminds me of a bad 80s movie about the USSR.
Am I the only who finds it odd that the anti-authoritarians are so fond of authoritarianism?
The 'liberal' party had 'open' minds and so were naturally where the communists went first. It was impossible for them to make gains among conservative people who knew what they believed and why.
Yes, the "liberals" definitely have "open minds." As in, vacant brains, air heads.
Above the idiotic state mandated helicopter parenting which seeks to stamp out any form of free thinking, there is zero pushback. The phenomena of turning kids into Borg-like drones where it is accepted is something I haven't been able to wrap my head around for over a decade. Gone is the age old attitude of "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me". Now we are left with kids who accept all the drivel of government approved social engineering without any form of questioning the policies.
I never realized that when I watched and laughed at Idiocracy, that society would have taken that satirical look at a dystopia future and instead of pondering its message ,used it as a blueprint for societal standard operating procedure.
It wasn't the ban of smoking, which started back in the mid 1990s, not early 2000s which jump started the downfall. It was the push for ridding the world of bullying amongst children, which became a policy in schools in the late 1970s. Go read the book Dumbing It Down. It lays out the blueprint for turning children into automatons by crushing the age old method which establishes civilization's natural pecking order.
Not only is "Fuck you I don't do what you tell me" dead, but Rage Against The Machine demands vaxx passes for anyone who wants to hear them perform it.
The Mommy State has been encroaching for a long time, but the smoking bans were a huge step forward in normalizing the idea that public health bureaucrats can order everyone around and make up whatever bullshit they want to justify it.
Where did the anti-bullying policies start in the late 70s? Kalifornication? The state that should be set adrift?
"Stanford’s motto is Die Luft der Freiheit weht—“the winds of freedom blow.”
Wonderful motto. They should put it over the entrance.
They need a new motto. Maybe "Abandon freedom all ye who enter here."
They have a wonderful cast of Rodin's The Gates of Hell outside the art museum. Perhaps it could be put to use.
I thought they were proposing, "Abandon hope all ye who are dragged kicking and screaming into this Orwelllian world".
Just go with the original, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
"They" are destroying our humanity...
"They" aren't human, so "they" must destroy us.
How long does society put up with this before it explodes?
Covid taught The Man that society will put up with an endless amount of tyranny
Ain’t that the truth.
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
I was fortunate to attend Stanford in the late 70’s, early 80’s. It was a great institution, and that was a golden era for student life in retrospect. I’ve been ashamed of Stanford’s wokeness for some time, notwithstanding the Hoover Institution’s scholarship. But I had no idea that it had become so East Germany, 1955. Do not give the little grey fascist administrators money. Do not donate to your alma maters until this shit is reversed. These hypocrites respond to pressure. They are cowards and paper tigers. They deserve our contempt, not our support. Put the little fake Commie professors and their half baked manifestos back in the corner where they belong. This is not America.
None is none. Stick to it. Alas, that might even mean no donations to a good org like Hoover that's linked to Stanford. Because, trust me, if Stanford will go this much to pot, its evil admin class will likely eventually win control over whatever money you send to Hoover.
It’s so very east Germany isn’t it? Complete with the Stasi training
Oh man, the hyperlinks in the primary story Chris linked are a gold mine.
Gotta read this:
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/23/new-to-the-neighborhood-outdoor-house-returns-with-a-focus-on-accessible-outdoor-education/
"Before the pandemic, Outdoor House would often host trips in places like the Sierra Nevadas or Mount Shasta."
THE HORROR. I'm glad some administrators stepped up and put a stop to that kind of monstrous behavior!
There are just soooo many choice quotes there, better than any satirical piece I could dream:
"I know that until I saw women working at Outward Bound and NOLS, I didn’t think I could do that — I couldn’t be an instructor,” Lowley said. “Representation is going to be really important.”
(I mean sure, women have traveled to space, conquered Mount Everest, been Prime Minister of the UK, sat on the Supreme Court, won the Nobel Prize - but an outdoor instructor? Come on, the glass ceiling can only be lowered so far!!!)
_______________
“invite more folks who have not necessarily been exposed” to the outdoors and allow everyone to “start to really appreciate the ways in which people experience the outdoors in ways that are not that classic model.”
(What fucking universe do these people live in? Are they Morlocks? The "outdoors" is some esoteric unknown territory, only rumored to exist? What the fuck is the "Classic model" of the outdoors?)
____________
“How can people realize that there are a lot of people of different backgrounds, different races, different genders, different identities, doing really cool stuff in your backyard?” Acceta asked.
(Note that Alex Acceta is a grown ass man in his 50's spouting and regurgitating this nonsense.)
___________
"Bear hopes that the themed residence will help people view simpler, less-strenuous activities as a healthy, more-inclusive alternative to what he calls “conquest-based” activities. Some of those simpler activities, to him, include playing frisbee, painting outdoors or going for dish hikes or walks around campus."
(The obvious question here is - should they jump straight to frisbee? Won't that be too much too fast? Could they at least start with something less demanding? Perhaps begin by just sitting outside for a few minutes?)
_______________
"This article has been updated to more accurately reflect Eric Bear’s views on outdoor activities. It has also been updated to reflect that Eric Bear applied to be a resident assistant for Outdoor House next year. The Daily regrets this error."
(I'm half tempted to use the wayback machine to find out what possible way they could framed Bear's comments to make him call them up and say "NO! You misrepresented me!")
Srsly, what's to stop students from self organizing an actual Outdoor House??? The hell are these kids doing??? It's Stanford ffs. Use daddy's money to build your own Outdoor House. Srsly I give no quarter for these kids.
I suspect there's a transition going on -- that on-campus official activities are moving off campus, where academic administrators can't interfere.
I certainly hope so. If Stanford is reinventing itself as a model for the transhumanist future, counterculture students should stake their claim to the complete opposite of that. What is the ultra very human future? Imagine what THAT would be, kids. It's on you.
Stanford was once better. I graduated in 1990. In my senior year, my roommate taught me to drive a stick (on his car!) while we drove to the Grand Canyon for spring break, camped at the bottom, and walked up the next day. No Outdoor House needed. Now we would probably need a notarized letter from our parents!
Imagine letting kids go hiking and camping without ensuring they they're doing so in fully inclusive, diverse groups and using the time to discuss the finer points of intersectional equity while challenging norms of heterocispatriarchical white supremacy.
They should just put a pup tent up in their mom’s backyard and tell ghost stories with s’mores.
Fall of the West reason 54949596797788.
Tragic. Frightening.
Two responses: 1. Yes, this sucks, and I can feel her pain as someone who enjoyed my education free of this kind of programming. 2. If Stanford is a school that requires smarts to get into, figure it out, be part of the resistance. Sure, they've destroyed something. OK, see it as a challenge, build something different back. Otherwise, drop out. Go somewhere else and make something. Mourning and living in this environment are two different things.