10

The Modern American Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil

Posted by khalling 9 years, 6 months ago to Culture
45 comments | Share | Flag

Camille Paglia nails both the sociological experiment of turning men into eunuchs and the progressive driven mentality that everything is too "complicated" to be be pure evil. I am pleasantly surprised that TIME picked this up.
SOURCE URL: http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 6 months ago
    Camille Paglia's intellect is a stiletto sharpened to a sometimes astonishing edge. Because she's bisexual, the left eagerly wants to claim her as theirs, but when she irreverently shows disdain for their moral relativity they shrink in fear. It's always refreshing to see the consistency of Paglia's thrust that evil is an unavoidable element of human nature that is too often allowed to hide in the dark. Regrettably, she's right about women who combine provocative wear and questionable entertainment locations as making themselves targets for predators. Young adults are prone to risk-taking, and the girls who dangle their sexual availability may be driven by the same urge to flirt with danger as the young men who drive cars too fast.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      that and the false safety/ego they are raised with. Also, the way boys are now being raised. They are to behave androgynousl-ly. Girls get used to that, and when they encounter men behaving naturally they panic and cry wolf. I actually think that's the root of the problem. Men expected to hide their true nature in order to be seen as acceptable in society. I wonder if it ends up creating more predators in the long run.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 6 months ago
        Hide their "true nature?" That implies that men have a distasteful inherent persona not fit for civilized company. I was reared with a belief in a chivalric mien as the appropriate behavior for a man: strong, respectful to women and elders, and gentle. I enjoy hunting and the "brutal sports", but have an appreciation for the arts. I've tried to pass this vision of the ideal male to my offspring and any young males I've had an opportunity to influence. The idea that male nature is universally crude and brutal is a feminist myth.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 6 months ago
          I agree with khalling, but I wonder if you actually disagree with her: One of the aspects of their nature that men are forced to repress to be PC is their chivalric instinct. Male nature is more aggressive and violent (testosterone) than the nature of most women, and chivalry gives the strong and aggressive individual a context for that power. Without chivalry, power can emerge as predatory brutality.

          The other half of the coin is that women should not believe that they are safe - a woman who is a martial artist or who is carrying concealed probably has a slightly less risk of being 'prey'...

          Male liberation - the freedom to be strong - has to be a part of female liberation. One does not gain ground by forcing different genders, different types of people into a single pigeonhole. There are different types of strength - not all is physical - but those who are strong in any manner should be free to express their excellence.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years, 5 months ago
    This makes me think of something I have been privy to lately. I am friends with a beautiful lady, early 40s. Without too much detail...she's pretty damn hot. She, however, is having trouble meeting guys who don't seem to have mental problems. I think this electronic age, with it's muted communication of texted type, might be partially to blame. At least, it provides a communication medium for twisted guys to reach out (because their facial expressions and body language are not available to be evaluated by the target lady). My friend has shown me several different texted conversations that start with a guy and her making small talk about whatever and, without any warning, the guy's communication immediately turns x-rated. Frankly, I find it to be a troubling trend. It is as though these guys feel insulated and more able to blurt out disgusting suggestions. Odd stuff...

    And, sexual predation isn't a right/left issue...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
    I am always amazed at how poorly people apply the schema of all they learn to life. While so much is different, in so many ways it is all the same. One of my favorite sayings is, “It’s the same thing only different.”
    The Borg and the Federation, the Sith and the Rebellion.
    Evil is all based on your perspective. Evil is determined by those in control or in charge, by those who make the determination of what basis and in what morality you must abide.
    Throughout history the same discussion, the same perspective conflict is played out. The Greeks vs. the Persian. Greeks viewed Persia as Evil, and visa-versa.
    The United States Constitution and the principals on what this country stands for is the basis in “our” morality our ethical behavior and our legal statutes.
    Move to Iran and your sense of morality, evil, right and wrong are vastly different. One major failing in our education system is in NOT teaching cultural differences and differences in viewpoint. What makes the Nazi Evil and the Capitalist Virtuous? What perspective makes the Communist Virtuous and the Capitalist Evil. If you talk to an Anarchist, all order is evil.
    Much like the adage, “History is written by the victors,” so too morality, evil, good are all dictated by those in control.

    This was express very well by Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

    The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name -- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names --liberty and tyranny.

    The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. -- Abraham Lincoln, in a speech at a Sanitary Fair in Baltimore, MD, on April 18th, 1864

    Going back to the article specifically, the Liberal and their "morality" assumes you have a better moral argument laying dead, raped and strangled with your own pantyhose, than if you had to argue why you pumped 9 rounds of .45 cal into the rapists chest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 6 months ago
      Lincoln himself falls into that. In the North, we see President Lincoln as a great man who freed the slaves and preserved the union. In the South, he is seen as a tyrant who took away their right to freedom and to choose. However you are right to say that it is the victor who writes history. Our forefathers were seen as rebels who needed to be squashed by the British overlords, whereas they are revered as founders of the revolution over here. It is all a matter of perspective.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
        that's what it ends up being, however, there is still objective truth. This is why people have to have a personal philosophy founded on reason. and then maintain it. Most don't and so their decisions begin to be all over the place instead of consistent.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brando79az 9 years, 6 months ago
    This article had a great point about progressivism. She had me until it turned into a lecture to dress conservatively. It seems her solution is to cover up midriffs and shoulders and that the men should just continue being stupid, wild cavemen. Based on my, admittedly glazy and superficial undergrad education, man’s instinctual deviance from a woman is a claim. I would listen more if the author provided some kind of reference.
    I don’t think I missed the point of the article; that young girls need to take some responsibility to prevent these crimes and that society should not bear the sole responsibilities, but the author makes the same “progressive” mistakes by blaming the attackers’ actions on something larger than the individual.
    My two cents? Instinct, at least not a gender specific instinct, is not to blame. It is the attacker. They are stupid, crazy, heartless and selfish. And yes, the victim should know there are looneys in the world and carry a sidearm or at least some pepper spray for protection.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 6 months ago
    I agree with a lot of what she says, but then from my impression starts thinking "how on can I possibly shoehorn this apolitical issue into a left/right narrative." She comes close to saying victims of sexual assult are partly to blame b/c they should known they were kind-of asking for it with "bared flesh and sexy clothes".

    She was on the right track in the beginning. Trying to make the issue about politics leads her to an ignoble place: "she was kind of asking for it"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Snoogoo 9 years, 6 months ago
      I vote for a happy alternative, as a woman I can wear what I want because I don't live in Taliban land, but if I am going to dress a certain way, I should wear at least enough clothing to conceal my weapon :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 6 months ago
        Always try to aim for torso center mass. I say "try" because situations vary. Should you miss the heart, you may still hit another body part. I learned that in the Marines and since then I've had jobs that required pistol training.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 6 months ago
      This, I think, is where the feminists aren't hearing her correctly. Dressing scantily is not "asking for it" in any sense that might justify an attack, but it certainly is "asking for it" in the sense that if I leave valuables visible in my parked car, I'm "asking for" someone to break in and steal them.

      Certainly if you are going to dress that way, it will help to have some means of defense close at hand, preferably something obvious (such as being arm-in-arm with a big beefy friend) so that you can deter the potential attack rather than find yourself in a fight, which is likely to cost you even if you win it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 9 years, 6 months ago
    Cami P is a brilliant light shining in the darkness of modern psychology.
    Her pointed rhetoric is a shot on target in the ideologue littered world of Higher Educationally impaired intelligencia, and her exotic point, that too many men "Are from Mars . . . " and that Venus is there for their exclusive pleasure, and are beyond any real reformation is on point! As some of the commentary herein are proof positive statements thereof.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 6 months ago
    Paglia nails it. Firmly. With a nail gun. Women are every bit as able to defend themselves as any man. As with men, it takes some effort. Martial arts, handling firearms, knives and pepper spray are tools to be learned and used. And don't let the excuse of modern times being a greater threat to women. It was always this way, only in the past women were willing to defer their safety to men. Any modern woman knows she's any man's equal. Now -- prove it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 6 months ago
    Hello khalling,
    A very good entry. Utopians cannot accept the world as it is. They believe they can mold man and society if only granted enough power. In a way, this is its own kind of evil.

    "Evil, for Objectivism, means the willful ignorance or defiance of reality. This has to mean that which cannot deal with reality, that which is whim ridden, context dropping, self contradictory. Evil is consistent in only one regard; its essence is consistently at war with all the values and virtues human life requires." OTPOAR pg. 329.
    Evil is the opposite of creation it is a destroyer, devoid of virtue, objective standards of morality, and ethics. "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival .." TARL. Evil's success depends largely upon the sanction of the victim, or the ignorance of its victims. "...evil is powerless and therefore, can exist only as a parasite on the good." OTPOAR pg.265

    Moral relativism is a dodge and a trap. In human relations, evil is forcing one's will upon the unwilling.

    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 6 months ago
    Let us not let evil actions and evil premises held by certain individuals drag us into a "malevolent universe" mindset. There is no such thing as a disembodied pure evil, only specific aberrant acts in the context of a universal ethics rooted in life. We can't fight evil by becoming it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 6 months ago
    I thought it was a good article and brought up things that need to be discussed with others. I forwarded the link to a female friend of mine who is at college. I thought she would need the info.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 6 months ago
    Too many in the libertarian movement cannot comprehend evil either. They especially cannot comprehend the concept "external enemy." Their central dictum is: "No enemies but what you make."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      great point
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 6 months ago
        To be more specific: they think the government has no enemies but what the government makes. They are the same kind of people Rand talked about in her essay "The Nature of Government." Like the statists, they hold that police and militaryhh protection is no different from any other good or service. Unlike the statists, they seek to privatize police, military, and judicial services also, and create an entirely voluntary association, similar to Rand's own Atlantis, with individual security (actually not required, since membership was by invitation only and they were all on the same page), a mercenary navy and intel service (Ragnar, his ship, and his spy network), and private arbitration (Judge Narragansett).

        Rand talked about one trouble with that: suppose A suspects B of stealing from him, and the security services of A and B clash when A tries to recover his stolen goods from B.

        Here's another problem: what duty does a mercenary force have, and to whom, when an attack against the "homeland" comes? Now it turned out that Ragnar recruited half the male population of the valley, that being all the available aircraft could carry, into the Atlantis Air and Land Militia to search for and rescue John Galt. They succeeded. We all agree that was a moral result. But: was that result in accord with Objectivist ethics? This would seem a stretch on "The Ethics of Emergencies." And here's the worst problem: too many of those libertarians don't treat an attack against a "perfect stranger" who happens to reside in their neighborhood with the same seriousness as they would treat an attack against themselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 6 months ago
          Those are real problems with competing security services that don't accept the same authority; to that extent, government has to be a monopoly.

          But the "perfect stranger" problem exists even in places where there is only one set of authorities. Ferguson is a good example. There, the city government and police are controlled by an in-group which is not trusted, or trustworthy, as seen by most residents and would rather predate against them than protect them, so Rand's "war" would be better than the present tyranny.

          My ideal solution would be to decentralize policing and courts as much as possible while still having a single central authority (more or less along the lines of David Friedman's writing about ancient Iceland).

          Second best would be to bring back segregation, but more along party lines instead of racial ones, because at least a stable peace would be created that way.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
            situations such as in Ferguson are flamed by division of groups. There is no evidence to support claims agitators make that the police force in Ferguson had a long standing problem with that community. Many in the community spoke out against the agitators and those rioting. First and foremost, economic freedom needs to be re-established and the group/community think melts away. Also the many crimes that go along with group mentality such as looting. When people are surrounded with lots of opportunity they generally take it and do not see themselves as victims. But in a welfare society, you have lots of able minded and bodied standing around all day doing nothing but nursing their hatred of those who are productive. That's when the crime sets in, and eventually you will have police behaving offensively when they work those neighborhoods instead of defensively.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 6 months ago
              No, what inflames Ferguson is the fact that even though there are two communities (in terms of culture and expectations about other people), only one of them effectively "owns" the town government. I'm talking about dividing places like that into separate local-government entities for each group, so that neither can tell the other how to live in its own town.

              Of course, this idea is about pragmatism, not rights. The concept of self-determination properly applies only to individuals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo