Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dinesh D’Souza Teaches Amherst Progressive a Vivid Lesson
If Ricochet followed the standard Internet headline format, I would have titled this post “Watch Dinesh Destroy SJW Hypocrite!” Instead, I respectfully ask you to enjoy this cathartic video from Amherst College. It’s most likely the best lesson this student will receive in his four-year program of study.
Published in Education
I thought he lost his cool and took too long to get to the meat, didn’t get to many points he could have made, and made it too explicitly personal too soon when that should have been the punch line. He probably lost most of them before he got where he wanted to go.
You think this student was talking to Dinesh? He was talking to his professors and fellow students. (Hashtag) Virtue Signaling.
This one actually came with a top notch YouTube comment:
What is “a self-flagellating and self-aggrandizing way”?
Beats me.
That was appalling.
It was exactly what you just saw. That’s why he denied it. Little lights flashing on his hypocrisy panel and he just pressed reset to make it go away. #2 is still on fire.
Golda Meir had his number:
That was so bad, my dog is howling. And he hasn’t even read this yet. And I don’t have a dog.
Don’t mean to be ironic, but I like your handle.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
No wonder Michael Sansregret.
Et Voici!
No, he’s just a poor sinner like the rest of us (and convicted felon). He has a brilliant mind, he is a fabulous author, and an extraordinary movie producer. That’s enough. [:-)
Isn’t it funny how the only “imperialism” that counts is that enacted by Western Europeans in the last 500 years or so. How many of these anti-imperialists are demanding that the descendants of the Yamato should give Japan back to the Ainu? How many of them want to see the Arabs give Egypt back to the Copts, or Iraq back to the Assyrians, or Morocco back to the Berbers? How many of the ones demanding reparations for the Navajo also demand reparations from the Navajo to the Pueblo?
That is a major flaw with the whole concept of “reparations”. First of all, where in history do you draw the line? I live in Florida. Does the U.S. government have to repay the Seminole Indians or should it be the Spanish government since they were the original European settlers in Florida? Secondly, my parents are immigrants to the U.S. Therefore my ancestors were not here when all of these “injustices” took place. Does that mean I am off the hook?
The great thing about free-market capitalism and a free society is that regardless of what happened in the past, every American is free to pursue the American dream and find their own success (or failure). People should focus on the future and not dwell in the past.
What!?! How will Democrats propel their grievance-based power accumulation strategy with that kind of optimistic thinking!?!
I think DD’s most important point was his observation that establishing explicit equality under law was the only effective remedy to Jim Crow, and institutionalized inequality. When a society tries to make another part of that society whole it is inevitable that it will fail. As an earlier comment suggests, rent-seeking, cronyism, and gaming the system abounds, and institutions become entrenched (see US Raisin board). As responsible adults we must come to grips with the fact that assuaging our guilt with other people’s money is wrong. Worse, it fertilizes the ground for unintended consequences to spring up and flourish. (see affirmative action, public housing projects, generational poverty)
DD is right when he points out that the only morally consistent deed anyone can do to address their guilt is personal, not institutional. Beyond that it becomes problematic, and will usually be evaluated more by its intentions than its results.
I think the student was well-spoken and reasonable (I grade on a curve with his ilk), and think DD could have responded more effectively. However, I don’t know the context of the presentation, so may be off-base.
As a Christian, I am uncomfortable telling my government what to do to make my feel better about myself. I see this all too often regarding SJ, and immigration. I reject it, and bristle when I see it offered up as a justification for policy.
The older woman sitting to the right of the Amherst student coaching/cheerleading must be his:
a) Life Coach,
b) Women’s Studies Professor,
c) Mommy,
d) All of the above
e) single….
The problem in engaging with this kind of debate is that it lends some credence to the idea of reparations, in one form or another. This is barely an idea. It’s a political idea, to be sure, but it’s not a rational one. Under any kind of bright light, this is stupid on its face, based on the history of how reparations, under one form or another, have gone, both here in the US and abroad.
Reparations foster separation and blame. It does zero in the moment, other than what is typically some kind of check-cutting. If Captain White Boy from Amherst really wants to make a difference, have him spend six months on a reservation as a teaching assistant at a school. Then he’ll have a very firm grasp on what it means to be helped by the USG when reparations are due.
Even if you bought the line that there’s some kind of ancestral responsibility-taking required, the implementation of that responsibility through gov’t-mandated something-somethings will inevitably result in someone living in public housing, somewhere, and all hope being stripped from their lives.
At least, that’s what history and current reality show us. Apparently that reality is lost on this kid’s mentor/prodder/Little Red Book holder sitting behind him, urging him forward into the abyss of lost humanity.
How many want to see blacks give the inner cities back to the earlier white immigrants who lived there?
The trouble with hypocrisy as a rebuttal is that it says nothing about which position is correct. That, and hypocrisy is too often conflated with simple failure; most people I encounter on the left don’t understand sin and redemption, and I think it’s a mistake to follow them there even if it’ll score some points in a debate.
Yes, I agree. “Hypocrisy” is a bad argument (although, I believe the student brought it up first, not D’Souza) . If we have any standards we fail to meet, we’re “hypocrites” by the modern definition.
I would have called the student out on cowardice. He lacks the courage of his convictions.
My problem with the hypocrisy charge is that it is ad hominem, even if true.
When I pointed out to a liberal friend of mine that Obama had added almost $10 trillion to the debt, virtually doubling it, he responded by calling me a hypocrite for failing to complain so loudly when Bush added $5 trillion, also doubling the debt.
I had some good arguments for why I was not being a hypocrite: Bush added only $5 trillion, not $10 trillion, I did in fact complain very loudly about Bush era spending, and I sent him the old emails to prove it.
But this was, I could see, a diversion from the main point, which is that Obama is destroying the country with his spending. Better to stick to the point.
In D’Souza’s case, it is a better argument because it’s essentially an argument about spending someone else’s money, which is effective against liberal do-gooders.
Or I would have called him out on trying to correct one problem by creating another one – two wrongs don’t make a right.
Humans are less than amoeba relative to our Universe. How many Universes are there? We do have consciousness, which allows for us to have guilt. But look around and be aware. Nature is not fair. On the contrary, it is indeed cruel in many respects. This fellow debating with Dinesh has found his guilt. If he wishes to live his life based on that guilt, he will never find happiness and satisfaction. He is young, smart, handsome, and, apparently financially secure. He can’t share his youth with an aging friend. Nor can he give his intelligence and looks to another person not blessed with those qualities from birth. We, as conscious entities, can, going forward, attempt to live in some harmony with each other and create societies that allow for each individual to reach their maximum potential. We cannot erase that which has already happened. It has been stated very succinctly already in these comments. Where would one start? And how can one possibly make the living pay for the currently perceived “sins” of their ancestors.
So glad that the idiocy and explicit self-contradiction of that comment wasn’t lost on anyone else. I thought for sure my head was exploding unduly.
That’s easy. They haven’t lived anywhere else.