at PJM. A small smackerel:
BC: Why do we as a society automatically extend empathy and compassion to criminals rather than the victims of their crimes? There’s a phrase that you use in this context: “a preference for barbarism.†Why do our intellectuals rally to the cause of miscreants rather than that of good, honest citizens?
Dr. Dalrymple: Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.
Now the criminal often emerges from terrible circumstances, of that there can be no doubt; but it is not true compassion towards him to turn him into an inanimate object that could have reacted to those circumstances only in the way he did. If this were truly the case, incidentally, the case for drastically more severe penalties would be made; for if the connection between childhood circumstances and crime were like that between the earth and the falling apple, then the criminal is incapable of change. I do not think this is so.
BC: What is the doctrine of “social inclusion†and how has it corrupted modern education?
Dr. Dalrymple: Trying to understand the concept of social inclusion is like trying to catch a cloud with a butterfly net. Roughly speaking, it means or implies that the bad outcomes for certain social groups are the result of acts of exclusion by other, more privileged groups. The excluded then suffer from poor self-esteem, which can be boosted by telling them that they are doing very well, irrespective of what they actually do. In order to compensate for their alleged exclusion, they are included by not holding them to the standards of the rest of society. Of course, this keeps them exactly where they are; if you were a Marxist, you would think that the British and American public education systems were conspiracies by the bourgeoisie to keep the poor poor.
Who loves him some Jean Genet? Yes he does such a good boy, nmnmnmnmn, good boy, rolls over Jean, yes he is, good boy, wag for us, tails up, yes you are, oh what a good boy Jean…….wanna go for a walk? You do? Get the leash, lets go good boy! Now Bite the Postlady, get her, get her good boy, break the skin, that-a-way good dog, chase her now, scare the old hag, good dog, ok that’s enough, come on let’s go, we’ll get another, oh there’s the neighbor sic-’em Jean, there you go, chew the bastard oh what a good dog rip ’em Jean, tear it off, you good boy….
If there is anyone better at cataloging the self-immolation of Western civilization than Dr. Dalrymple (a pseudonym), I’ve not read him. Go to the Manhatten Institute site. His essays are magnificant, if more than a little depressing.
“Manhattan” What the…
I have to disagree. The state of our current educational system is the result of Marxists conspiring to keep the poor both poor and stupid.
Well opined, Rob…
Republican anti-intellectualism continues unabated.
Film at 11.
Really? Sounds like counter-“intellectualism” to me.
Dissent against intellectualism is Patriotic!
LOL at Parsnip. Dalrymple’s book “Life at the Bottom” is really good. Depressing as shit but nonetheless interesting.
parsnip’s assertion sans evidence are, well, shocking, to say the least. No one who claims to be an intellectual, or at least allied with same, would make such a rash statement with no substantiation, would they? After all, that would expose them as nothing more than a rank poseur, no?
No posuer he. He’s the real deal, pure grade 100% moron.
“Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.”
DingDingDingDingDing!
You cannot understand the psyche of the intellectual without understanding their zeal for distinction from the common and ordinary. If something is popular or beloved by the masses, the intellectual automatically disdains it, not on its merits or lack thereof, but because intellectuals are loath to be seen as “one of THEM.”
For people who fancy themselves as lovers of the common man, that is a pretty funny way of showing it.
Wiki says…
‘Social exclusion is a multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals from social relations and institutions and preventing them from full participation in the normal, normatively prescribed activities of the society in which they live.[1]
However, one problem with the term is the tendency of its use by practitioners to define it to fit their argument”
Bullwinkle says..
“Trying to understand the concept of social inclusion is like trying to catch a cloud with a butterfly net”
I get yer drift, Rumpledforeskin.
Hundreds of thousands of incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders would like to know what the fuck this dude is smoking.
Hundreds of thousands of incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders would like to know what the fuck this dude is smoking.
I think he means the violent offender, AJB. See also: Ayers, Bill and Dohrn, Bernadine (and the Left’s fawning over same)
the troll snarl to regular commenter ratio so far is very amusing. all it needs is thor or Mr. Burgundy to make it perfect.
For instance, if a maniac really couldn’t control his actions, and was inevitably hostile to all life, the only effective solution would be to kill him. Do the insane-panderers really want that?
You really have to appreciate the effort AJB puts into missing the point.
It is kind of funny the way that works Pabs. With the whole damn lot of ’em, really, very dependable that way.
Look, wingers. They’re NOT talking about Mumia. NOT!
Actually, that’s ‘psuedo-intellectual gobbledy-gook’ by both questioner and respondant.
I can use the same responses to prove that liberal-progressives hate poor conservatives who live in fly-over country.
“No posuer he. He’s the real deal, pure grade 100% moron.”
True that and that is the reason NOBODY should engage him. It’s a fruitless venture. Point and laugh. Point and laugh.
“Hundreds of thousands of incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders would like to know what the fuck this dude is smoking.”
Maybe, just maybe, this “dude” wasn’t talking about them. Maybe, just maybe, that “dude” was talking about violent criminals.
AJB has fallen into the same trap as was exposed in the interview. He’s pushing for sympathy toward the criminals, while ignoring the victims.
WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TWINKIES?!