Thus the University, as such, passes out
of the chain of institutions that have
traditionally advanced the human condition.
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication
[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]
Re: Virtue Signalling 101 by Sean Gangol
What you call virtue signaling I call an auto de fe, the compulsory profession of faith required by institutions such as the Inquisition. One must attest one's orthodox allegiance to the established faith on demand and repeatedly. This attestation must follow an exact script and to stray from it makes one a heretic to be punished.
In modern America the Inquisitors are the members of the establishment press. One must express the exact values they espouse or be held up to public excoriation. If one is a hated President one may not deviate from the script by a single jot or tittle. Even the use of a synonym for the exact word on the script is subject to denunciation as anathema, blasphemy, and heresy. In the case of the current President, one is expected to make his auto de fe repeatedly, with the full understanding his sincerity will not be accepted.
I am reminded of the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade from Catch 22. (for convenience I cite SparkNotes) We need a Major ________de Coverly to demand "Gimme eat," and end this nonsense. Sadly, as long as his own party are out to get Mr. Trump as a heretic and seek press support, this isn't going to happen for a while.A.X. Perez
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
In TLE 937, A.X. Perez said (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2017/tle937-20170827-01.html#letter02):
"So I will offer the following definition: racism is the denying of peopleís rights, natural or civil, due to their racial or ethnic background. A correspondent of mine denounced this definition because everyone agrees it is wrong. I think he prefers a definition based on disliking or judging people because of their race or ethnic background. The problem with this definition is that I really donít care if you despise me because Iím a light skinned Mestizo. I do have a problem if you wonít sell me food or rent me a prepaid room because you dislike my ethnic background."
I would certainly dislike it if someone refused to sell me food or rent me a room because I'm a white man. But it's his food, and his room, until he agrees to sell or rent them to me. His reason for refusal is none of my business. My only moral recourse is to find someone who will.
I don't like racism, but it alone should not be criminal. Crime is the intentional aggressive harm of person or property. Period. Refusing to do business with someone is certainly nasty, but it's just as much a right as saying something somebody else doesn't like, or carrying tools of self defense.
Bill St. Clair
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)