University of Alabama - “ peak neo-antebellum white Southern culture” - NYT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

Ha - the only people on here who want to stop the conversation are the ones going after Cottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

Ha - the only people on here who want to stop the conversation are the ones going after Cottom.

Wow. Delusional. Do you understand how critical discourse even works? Plainly not, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

This is well said. Both sides of the political spectrum are publishing poorly reasoned, poorly researched tripe. Both sides publish works that are tinged with racism or misogyny.

We don't have to accept an article just because it comes from the left. (I'm on the left.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would invite the poster who finds this piece so threatening to look internally at why they are having this reaction.

I’m so tired of this profoundly narcissistic response to even the mildest intellectual criticism that has taken the place of actual thoughtful commentary on the left. This sort of comment comes up again and again in leftist academic discourse: if you don’t immediately affirm and celebrate whatever nonsense is being written by any mediocre thinker, you must be “threatened” by it, because modern leftist academic discourse does not allow for the possibility that one of them could actually just be a bad writer. It’s an intellectually weak defensive response that stems out of a desire to shut down discussion, because that discussion might lead to actual thought and we can’t have that.

It’s honestly embarrassing. The frantic leftist academic desire to stop any conversation that might lead to an even mildly complex and potentially critical opinion is pathetic. And it is universal now: people like the PP pop up at all academic conferences, all symposiums, all journal calls. It’s narcissistic behavior that is academically weak.

Writing can just be bad. The right is not the only side of the political spectrum that is publishing weak tripe. We don’t need to celebrate every piece of writing that anyone with even minimal standards can see is not well done.

Here is a hint: if you look at a piece of writing and ask whether ChatGPT could have generated it, maybe ask whether your standards are too low before praising it.

This is well said. Both sides of the political spectrum are publishing poorly reasoned, poorly researched tripe. Both sides publish works that are tinged with racism or misogyny.

We don't have to accept an article just because it comes from the left. (I'm on the left.)

PS. If only Tucker Carlson's listeners felt the same. But we on the left can do better, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

Sure. So if your standard is “I want to act like the people in the comment section of Fox News,” I guess you’re meeting that standard. Well done to you, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

Sure. So if your standard is “I want to act like the people in the comment section of Fox News,” I guess you’re meeting that standard. Well done to you, I suppose.

+1

[Anonymous]

Cottom strikes me as genuinely confused and conflicted. So much of the essay bashes the sororities for being too white, only for it to end with statements like "why would anyone want to integrate that?" and "Sometimes the proper place for something is the past, and the thing just does not know it yet." It's as if she's saying Black students shouldn't want to be in those sororities... which would be all the explanation needed for why they have low percentages of Black members, right?

Also interesting that Cottom doesn't mention that Black students are more likely than white students to receive an actual bid after completing the recruitment processs, reinforcing their low numbers in the sororities are by choice.

https://thecrimsonwhite.com/82701/news/a-racial-breakdown-of-alabama-sorority-recruitment/#:~:text=White%20students%20accounted%20for%20about,multiple%20races%20in%20fall%202020.

Finally, it's clear Cottom is concerned with "power" at Alabama. She uses the term 10 times, speaking in vague ways about how "the power" of these predominantly white sororities is "the brotherhood that desires it." Seems pretty insulting to the women of Alabama! She further insults the rest of their Greek system referring to how a not so secret society comprised of its leadership is like organized crime "with training wheels" because they have "influenced" campus elections in the past (is that so surprising let alone illegal?). It's pretty clear she sees the power being disproportionately concentrated among white males at the university. Now, it might've been interesting for her to show her research skills (?) to actually back up that position, but she doesn't. She's a columnist for the most famous newspaper in the country and a professor at a public flagship (so, she's employed by the people), but she can't be bothered with taking the time to vet her own serious allegations. If she had been serious about exploring the recent history of power at the campus, she might've looked at the recent student body presidents. Of the last 10, 4 are white women, 3 are Black men, and 3 are white men. I get that there are other data points, but come on! This is totally inconsistent with her premise that white males run the show at Alabama. It took me 5 min to figure that out, and I'm not a sociology professor making wild claims in a major newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Cottom strikes me as genuinely confused and conflicted. So much of the essay bashes the sororities for being too white, only for it to end with statements like "why would anyone want to integrate that?" and "Sometimes the proper place for something is the past, and the thing just does not know it yet." It's as if she's saying Black students shouldn't want to be in those sororities... which would be all the explanation needed for why they have low percentages of Black members, right?

Also interesting that Cottom doesn't mention that Black students are more likely than white students to receive an actual bid after completing the recruitment processs, reinforcing their low numbers in the sororities are by choice.

https://thecrimsonwhite.com/82701/news/a-racial-breakdown-of-alabama-sorority-recruitment/#:~:text=White%20students%20accounted%20for%20about,multiple%20races%20in%20fall%202020.

Finally, it's clear Cottom is concerned with "power" at Alabama. She uses the term 10 times, speaking in vague ways about how "the power" of these predominantly white sororities is "the brotherhood that desires it." Seems pretty insulting to the women of Alabama! She further insults the rest of their Greek system referring to how a not so secret society comprised of its leadership is like organized crime "with training wheels" because they have "influenced" campus elections in the past (is that so surprising let alone illegal?). It's pretty clear she sees the power being disproportionately concentrated among white males at the university. Now, it might've been interesting for her to show her research skills (?) to actually back up that position, but she doesn't. She's a columnist for the most famous newspaper in the country and a professor at a public flagship (so, she's employed by the people), but she can't be bothered with taking the time to vet her own serious allegations. If she had been serious about exploring the recent history of power at the campus, she might've looked at the recent student body presidents. Of the last 10, 4 are white women, 3 are Black men, and 3 are white men. I get that there are other data points, but come on! This is totally inconsistent with her premise that white males run the show at Alabama. It took me 5 min to figure that out, and I'm not a sociology professor making wild claims in a major newspaper.

It went over your head, but she is saying the young women have done nothing but subjugate themselves. Given that she argues, the solution is not to add yet more women to the sororities, or waste any time trying to fix a backward institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

Sure. So if your standard is “I want to act like the people in the comment section of Fox News,” I guess you’re meeting that standard. Well done to you, I suppose.

Hello, I just said that both groups are bad--the Fox News echo chamber and the left echo chamber that says we have to accept bad research. What's wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cottom strikes me as genuinely confused and conflicted. So much of the essay bashes the sororities for being too white, only for it to end with statements like "why would anyone want to integrate that?" and "Sometimes the proper place for something is the past, and the thing just does not know it yet." It's as if she's saying Black students shouldn't want to be in those sororities... which would be all the explanation needed for why they have low percentages of Black members, right?

Also interesting that Cottom doesn't mention that Black students are more likely than white students to receive an actual bid after completing the recruitment processs, reinforcing their low numbers in the sororities are by choice.

https://thecrimsonwhite.com/82701/news/a-racial-breakdown-of-alabama-sorority-recruitment/#:~:text=White%20students%20accounted%20for%20about,multiple%20races%20in%20fall%202020.

Finally, it's clear Cottom is concerned with "power" at Alabama. She uses the term 10 times, speaking in vague ways about how "the power" of these predominantly white sororities is "the brotherhood that desires it." Seems pretty insulting to the women of Alabama! She further insults the rest of their Greek system referring to how a not so secret society comprised of its leadership is like organized crime "with training wheels" because they have "influenced" campus elections in the past (is that so surprising let alone illegal?). It's pretty clear she sees the power being disproportionately concentrated among white males at the university. Now, it might've been interesting for her to show her research skills (?) to actually back up that position, but she doesn't. She's a columnist for the most famous newspaper in the country and a professor at a public flagship (so, she's employed by the people), but she can't be bothered with taking the time to vet her own serious allegations. If she had been serious about exploring the recent history of power at the campus, she might've looked at the recent student body presidents. Of the last 10, 4 are white women, 3 are Black men, and 3 are white men. I get that there are other data points, but come on! This is totally inconsistent with her premise that white males run the show at Alabama. It took me 5 min to figure that out, and I'm not a sociology professor making wild claims in a major newspaper.

It went over your head, but she is saying the young women have done nothing but subjugate themselves. Given that she argues, the solution is not to add yet more women to the sororities, or waste any time trying to fix a backward institution.

So you took the time to read up on the four female presidents? You know they were in sororities? If your definition of "subjugation" is putting on make-up or dressing up or staying fit, you and Cottom must share a lot.