🐱 Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
CatParty
Damien Thorne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2020
Chiquita are Banana Republicans and need to be cancelled! This article convinced me of that!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
So now we're complaining about banana stickers? I wonder how long it's going to be before they run out of shit to be offended about in the macro-universe and start bitching about subatomic particles.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
OP realizes that he's extremely retarded and starts screaming about 'work out' bananas, starts #BananaGate in quick turn of events, no more news at 11.
:”Lol fat”
Honka Honka Burning Love
In Clown World, the only god is the one who Honks.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
Sneed's Feed And Seed
Well you're certainly doing your job today Mr. Sun
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Fruit is full of sugar. It's just as bad for you as the "candy bar, or doughnut, or cookie".
Eat a celery stick with some peanut butter or just fast ffs, if you're getting the sugar rages over missing a meal your insulin resistance is worse than you think.
Johan Schmidt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
Everything is bad when not done in moderation. Real talk just do IF, avoid white sugar, and excercise daily. Weigh yoir food and count calories.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2017
Again, these people have mistaken journalism with their personal blogs.
Also, "Chiquita/o" means "very small". Maybe it's just not the type of fruit for you.
Also, "Chiquita/o" means "very small". Maybe it's just not the type of fruit for you.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Her soul is fat. When she dies, she will go to Hell, because her soul is too fat to go to Heaven.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
Free will is Bad better for people to be Slaves
Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech
An unthinking belief in the equality of all ideas has led to cancel culture and the persecution of heretics.
By Tony Woodlief
Aug. 30, 2020 12:15 pm ET
PHOTO: CHAD CROWE
Conservatives calling for more free speech as a way to push back against campus cancel culture are trying to repair the stable when the horses bolted long ago. It may seem reasonable to think academic diversity and open debate can counter progressive groupthink, but the intolerance prevailing on college campuses isn’t the result of too little speech. It’s a consequence of too much speech.
Older conceptions of free speech are present in texts stretching back to Plato, but the modern form of the idea is the creation of John Stuart Mill. In “On Liberty” he posited a kind of reverse Gresham’s Law of ideas: Good ideas, he argued, inevitably drive out the bad ones in the court of educated opinion.
Mill believed we are better off giving a platform to the “heretic”—his term—for two reasons. First, he might be right. Second, even if he is wrong, the exercise of combating his bad opinion strengthens society’s capacity for reason and healthy argument. The heretic should never be pressured out of the public square, Mill argued, no matter how many times his views have been refuted in the past. In the spirit of open inquiry, everyone should have a voice.
Mill’s free-speech absolutism has been a guiding light for universities for many decades. But in imagining we could cultivate thoughtful citizens by exposing them to a bazaar of competing ideas and ideologies, we ironically encouraged the decline of truth-seeking itself. As the political theorist Willmoore Kendall predicted in the 1950s, a community that treats every idea as ultimately refutable will eventually conclude that no real truth exists. And once that happens, he reasoned, a formerly “open society” will “overnight become the most intolerant of possible societies and, above all, one in which the pursuit of truth . . . can only come to a halt.”
When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.
I once worked at a university that hired a scholar with widely published opinions on bioethics. During an introductory lunch, a faculty member took issue with his position against human cloning, in particular his concern that bereaved spouses might one day clone their lost partners and bring up the replacements, raising the specter of incest. “What’s wrong with incest?” this faculty member asked. “I can’t believe,” our new scholar replied, “I have to explain to an educated adult what’s wrong with incest.”
He didn’t last long in the job.
That was 20 years ago, and what was widely considered obscene then is less so now. Such is the way of things when no idea is beyond the pale; we abandon the firm ground necessary to call evil by its rightful name. This is why ideas inimical to free speech—Marxism and its identitarian offshoots—receive perennially fresh hearings under various guises in departments ranging from gender studies to philosophy to English. Adherents of these ideologies have no problem denying speech to their opponents. Our commitment to granting every idea space to bloom has ironically yielded speech codes, safe zones and purges of independent-minded scholars. Now this illiberalism is boiling over from campuses into the streets of Portland and other university-heavy cities.
We’re seeing free speech driven from campuses, in other words, because our unthinking commitment to it has kept us from constraining radicals who use their classrooms and administrative perches to persuade the young that freedom is a fiction. These ideologues have a chokehold on our universities and many other institutions. They have no interest in the principle of free speech, and we’re wasting time trying to get them to abide by it.
Consider how even the University of Chicago—birthplace of the 2014 “Chicago principles,” affirming the importance of open debate—has bowed to anti-free-speech fervor. Two years ago, the university that once famously extended free speech to an actual Nazi allowed radical faculty members to obstruct Steve Bannon from speaking on campus, claiming his words were dangerous to students.
The solution is not to issue more bromides about the importance of free speech. It’s to take the principle itself more seriously. Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.
How can we hold anti-free-speech ideologues accountable? While federal courts properly protect the rights of professors to associate with unpopular organizations and disseminate radical views to the broader public, they’ve also made clear that the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings. The judicial system typically obliges institutions to uphold their own standards, and the stated standards of universities are solidly in favor of free speech.
The American Association of University Professors, in its Statement of Professional Ethics, makes clear that educators are to “practice intellectual honesty,” “encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students,” and “respect and defend the free inquiry” of fellow academics. Furthermore, as citizens, scholars have “a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry.” University administrators may not have the courage to hold their institutions to these standards, but there’s no reason courts won’t.
These standards should be rigorously applied to every university instructor on the left and right. Anti-free speech academics may sue, but let’s get on with it. While professors have academic freedom as researchers, they have clear duties as educators. To save free speech in our broader society, it’s imperative that we demand its more responsible exercise in our classrooms.
Mr. Woodlief is founder of IntentionalFathering.com.
Aug. 30, 2020 12:15 pm ET
PHOTO: CHAD CROWE
Conservatives calling for more free speech as a way to push back against campus cancel culture are trying to repair the stable when the horses bolted long ago. It may seem reasonable to think academic diversity and open debate can counter progressive groupthink, but the intolerance prevailing on college campuses isn’t the result of too little speech. It’s a consequence of too much speech.
Older conceptions of free speech are present in texts stretching back to Plato, but the modern form of the idea is the creation of John Stuart Mill. In “On Liberty” he posited a kind of reverse Gresham’s Law of ideas: Good ideas, he argued, inevitably drive out the bad ones in the court of educated opinion.
Mill believed we are better off giving a platform to the “heretic”—his term—for two reasons. First, he might be right. Second, even if he is wrong, the exercise of combating his bad opinion strengthens society’s capacity for reason and healthy argument. The heretic should never be pressured out of the public square, Mill argued, no matter how many times his views have been refuted in the past. In the spirit of open inquiry, everyone should have a voice.
Mill’s free-speech absolutism has been a guiding light for universities for many decades. But in imagining we could cultivate thoughtful citizens by exposing them to a bazaar of competing ideas and ideologies, we ironically encouraged the decline of truth-seeking itself. As the political theorist Willmoore Kendall predicted in the 1950s, a community that treats every idea as ultimately refutable will eventually conclude that no real truth exists. And once that happens, he reasoned, a formerly “open society” will “overnight become the most intolerant of possible societies and, above all, one in which the pursuit of truth . . . can only come to a halt.”
When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.
I once worked at a university that hired a scholar with widely published opinions on bioethics. During an introductory lunch, a faculty member took issue with his position against human cloning, in particular his concern that bereaved spouses might one day clone their lost partners and bring up the replacements, raising the specter of incest. “What’s wrong with incest?” this faculty member asked. “I can’t believe,” our new scholar replied, “I have to explain to an educated adult what’s wrong with incest.”
He didn’t last long in the job.
That was 20 years ago, and what was widely considered obscene then is less so now. Such is the way of things when no idea is beyond the pale; we abandon the firm ground necessary to call evil by its rightful name. This is why ideas inimical to free speech—Marxism and its identitarian offshoots—receive perennially fresh hearings under various guises in departments ranging from gender studies to philosophy to English. Adherents of these ideologies have no problem denying speech to their opponents. Our commitment to granting every idea space to bloom has ironically yielded speech codes, safe zones and purges of independent-minded scholars. Now this illiberalism is boiling over from campuses into the streets of Portland and other university-heavy cities.
We’re seeing free speech driven from campuses, in other words, because our unthinking commitment to it has kept us from constraining radicals who use their classrooms and administrative perches to persuade the young that freedom is a fiction. These ideologues have a chokehold on our universities and many other institutions. They have no interest in the principle of free speech, and we’re wasting time trying to get them to abide by it.
Consider how even the University of Chicago—birthplace of the 2014 “Chicago principles,” affirming the importance of open debate—has bowed to anti-free-speech fervor. Two years ago, the university that once famously extended free speech to an actual Nazi allowed radical faculty members to obstruct Steve Bannon from speaking on campus, claiming his words were dangerous to students.
The solution is not to issue more bromides about the importance of free speech. It’s to take the principle itself more seriously. Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.
How can we hold anti-free-speech ideologues accountable? While federal courts properly protect the rights of professors to associate with unpopular organizations and disseminate radical views to the broader public, they’ve also made clear that the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings. The judicial system typically obliges institutions to uphold their own standards, and the stated standards of universities are solidly in favor of free speech.
The American Association of University Professors, in its Statement of Professional Ethics, makes clear that educators are to “practice intellectual honesty,” “encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students,” and “respect and defend the free inquiry” of fellow academics. Furthermore, as citizens, scholars have “a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry.” University administrators may not have the courage to hold their institutions to these standards, but there’s no reason courts won’t.
These standards should be rigorously applied to every university instructor on the left and right. Anti-free speech academics may sue, but let’s get on with it. While professors have academic freedom as researchers, they have clear duties as educators. To save free speech in our broader society, it’s imperative that we demand its more responsible exercise in our classrooms.
Mr. Woodlief is founder of IntentionalFathering.com.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
You know, Amazon, Google, and Soros may be rich enough they don't care about money or profits, but I have a feeling Micky D's still does. That BLM and joggers in general are making enemies left and right is one of my few glimmers of hope.
Mamillionaire
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2017
https://twitter.com/roddreher/status/1300897705858928646
A town hall meeting where everyone is forced to call themselves racist and enablers of white supremacy
100% certainly not a cult
A town hall meeting where everyone is forced to call themselves racist and enablers of white supremacy
100% certainly not a cult
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
A pathetic lol sk00l that isn't even ABA-accredited and therefore doesn't even qualify as a fifth tier toilet.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
A Catholic Church recently did this, but they had pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbury in the background.
@Memology 101 did an interesting vid on it:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
Califorina being caliorina again
it was just extra law for no reason
it was just extra law for no reason
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2017
https://streamable.com/owvvzb
Some nig goes to party and tries instigate a robbery against 3 "white bois", turns out they're latinos with gang connections.
The first few frames of the video are this story about he was arrested for attacking 3 trannies a few days later.
Some nig goes to party and tries instigate a robbery against 3 "white bois", turns out they're latinos with gang connections.
The first few frames of the video are this story about he was arrested for attacking 3 trannies a few days later.
Memology 101
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
Some people are arguing with me about the bill and that it isn't that bad. I read it and the amount of loopholes it has is astronomical.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
Jessica Krug trending on twitter, African american studies professor apologizes for saying she was black her whole life since she is really white & Jewish.
White professor at George Washington University admits she lied about being Black
her Medium confession is here.
According to her university bio, Krug is an expert in Africa, Latin America, African American history, early modern world history, imperialism and colonialism. Her courses include, "Caribbean on the Move: The Politics of Immigration and Popular Dance in the Caribbean and Its Diasporas" and "Africa and the African Diaspora: (Trans)Nationalisms and the Politics of Modernity."
She is a finalist for both the Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass book prizes.
White professor at George Washington University admits she lied about being Black
her Medium confession is here.
According to her university bio, Krug is an expert in Africa, Latin America, African American history, early modern world history, imperialism and colonialism. Her courses include, "Caribbean on the Move: The Politics of Immigration and Popular Dance in the Caribbean and Its Diasporas" and "Africa and the African Diaspora: (Trans)Nationalisms and the Politics of Modernity."
She is a finalist for both the Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass book prizes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
>Jew from a prairie state pretending to be black
It's like Dolezal on steroids. I don't think she ever affected a cringe fake latina accent alongside the raceplay, though.