GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Students troll teacher who totally does not see how she might deserve trolling

by

Some of the students, allegedly, festooned the classroom with pictures of Trump, a map of his Electoral College win, “Obama – you’re fired”, and a respectful, accurate statement of Trump’s policy positions.

All pretty innocuous, except for one thing: someone made fun of her gap teeth (which they should not have done – whoever it was; note that we cannot make any assumptions about whom).

Her overall response? Calling her students “racist”. Repeatedly.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0cHDLcKLu4[/youtube]

I wonder how many times she tried to use her position to cram Social Justice Warrior politics down her students’ throats? I can’t know but, reading between the lines, I wouldn’t be surprised if she did it 24/7.

It takes awhile

by

…but sometimes there’s justice.

Remember that UVa “campus rape culture” hoax that bubbled up in 2014? Recent news is that Rolling Stone will pay settlement damages to the fraternity they accused.

A source involved at the national level with the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, tells TheDC that Rolling Stone will pay $1.65 million to settle the defamation suit…

In the piece, “A Rape on Campus,” Erdely relayed the story of Jackie Coakley, a Virginia woman who claimed she was brutally raped by a group of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity members during a party in Sept. 2012.

Separately, a UVa dean also got damages:

The magazine’s decision follows a settlement in April with Nicole Eramo, a University of Virginia associate dean who was also smeared in the article, which was written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely…

Erdely portrayed Eramo as dismissive of Coakley’s case. But it was later revealed that Coakley not only fabricated the attack by the fraternity members but that Eramo took her allegations seriously at the time she made them.

A jury in Virginia awarded Eramo $3 million in damages — $2 million from Erdely and $1 million from Rolling Stone.

I don’t know what has happened to the original accuser, Jackie Coakley?

While I’m at it:

That awkward moment when Lou Reed is doubleplusungood crimethinkful

by

Old and busted: Lou Reed is so cool. He did a song about trannies that makes the squares uptight!

New hotness: Lou Reed is so bigoted. He did a song about trannies that makes us SJWs uptight!

A student group at the University of Guelph in Canada has apologized for including the Lou Reed song “Walk on the Wild Side” on a playlist at a campus event…

The Guelph Central Student Association wrote “We now know the lyrics to this song are hurtful to our friends in the trans community and we’d like to unreservedly apologize for this error in judgement.”…

In a further statement a spokesperson said: “The lyrics, ‘and then he was a she,’ devalues the experiences and identities of trans folks.

Huh? How?

Signs, bad and good

by

Bad: By a 56-31 majority, U.S. college students want speech to be regulated.

Good: By a 56-41 majority, Americans believe that more people carrying concealed guns would make us all safer. Particularly the young: “Younger Americans are more likely to choose the ‘safer’ option [in Gallup’s poll] than those aged 30 and above.”

So, young Americans -at college- are against free speech. But young Americans -in general- understand correctly that a well-armed society is a polite(r) society. I’ll take the difference as a sign that something is very wrong with U.S. colleges.

Hey Liz: Here’s why you are a socialist

by

Picking this up from V’s post of a week or two ago, Elizabeth Warren does not understand why people think she’s a socialist.

(Please, I need a moment to stop giggling. It’s as if President Obama were to say he does not understand why people think he’s a liar. Air gasp. OK, I think I can go on.) – Warren said:

I just don’t know where [people] get that [idea of her being a socialist]. You know, look at the issues. I mean really, let’s take a look at minimum wage — I just believe nobody should work full time and live in poverty…Student loans: I don’t think the U.S. government should be making tens of billions of dollars in profits off the backs of our students, which is what the current student loan system is doing…

Never mind that Warren proposes the U.S. government to *lose* tens of billions of dollars on student loans. Let’s go straight to Kevin Williamson, defining socialism:

The current Random House Dictionary definition of “socialism” is serviceable but dated: “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”…

[Dated, because] It should read “ownership -or- control” rather than “ownership -and- control.” As we have seen in the cases of enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it is entirely possible for government economic planners to intervene deeply (and, in this familiar case, catastrophically) in the economy while maintaining private economic forms…

A more complete definition of socialism incorporates two criteria: The first is that socialism entails the public provision of non-public goods. The second is the use of central planning to implement that policy.

And that, Liz, is why you are a socialist.

  1. You want the public purse to pay for *private* goods (goods that benefit the individual primarily, if not exclusively). For just one example, you want government to fund special young people on a costly, but often low-benefit, multi-year jaunt that we politely call “college”.
  2. And you believe in a planned economy. For just one example, you want government to dictate the minimum wage at which a worker may offer her work (or else you will not permit any employer to give her work).

For the record: I don’t and I don’t. So, I’m not.

Get down, PC-style!

by

From Concordia University (in Montreal) – Politically Correct lefties show how it’s done! Video here.

WARNING: Although it probably rates as only PG-13, it’s one of those things you won’t be able to “un-see”. Words can’t convey the full, un-sexy, un-romantic inanity of these indoctrinated “Affirmative Consent” robots.

Via Daily Caller. DC adds:

Yet in the course of the video, both lovers ask one another whether certain kisses and touches are acceptable only after they have already begun, a clear violation of the need for prior explicit consent.

Heh.

Nick adds: Not sure if it’s because I’m gay in the first place, but… Whoa, I am so flaccid now, dude.

Do economists actually like war? Yes.

by

A key fallacy of mainstream economics today is its belief that all economic activity is good activity. Quality doesn’t matter. We must “stimulate” the economy to get those GDP numbers up, and all will be better. It doesn’t matter if we rack up endless debt, only to pay people to dig holes and re-fill them or to re-build cities destroyed in war.

It sounds like I’m exaggerating, doesn’t it? Many economists would scoff that I am. Except I’m not.

For example, Paul Krugman and other neo-Keynesian economists claim often (and wrongly) that the destroy-and-spend of World War II is what pulled the world out of the Great Depression. Krugman has called for housing bubbles and fake alien invasions on more than one occasion, and only half-jokingly at best.

Or we have the recent movement to count illegal activities (drugs and prostitutes) as part of GDP. It got another little boost when Spain signed on. (By counting illegal drugs and prostitution as part of its GDP, Spain can reduce its official debt-to-GDP ratio, making its finances appear sounder than they are.)

I believe that all of this speaks to both the deep Statism and the deep nihilism that have infected modern culture. The implication – that economists never state outright because they know it would sound too crazy, but the implication remains – “Gee, if only the government would spend on destruction, the economy would boom. If only people would buy more meaningless sex and drugs, the financial system would be sound.” As if those are productive activities.

Again, put like that, it sounds like I’m drawing a caricature; but I’m not. A recent example is from the New York Times, a serious opinion pieced titled The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth. It begins: [Read more…]

Left-wing economists: They’re that stupid

by

Zero Hedge remembers how the Great Housing Bubble of 2003-7 was something Paul Krugman had called for:

Before you say “But that was in 2002!”, consider more recent examples of Krugman stupidity, like his calling in 2012 for the government to boost (supposedly) the economy by faking an invasion of space aliens. The Krugtron quote from Time’s account:

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” Krugman says…

A second instance, from PuffHo’s account:

“So if we could get something that could cause the government to say, ‘Oh, never mind those budget things; let’s just spend and do a bunch of stuff.’ So my fake threat from space aliens is the other route,” Krugman said before a laughing crowd. “I’ve been proposing that.”

So he said it more than once; only half-joking at best. The man loves his malinvestment.*

(*Borrow-and-spend that creates market bubbles, overbuilding, leaf-raking, wars or other activity that is economically inefficient, or useless, or even destructive.)

Related: It struck me that one way you can tell a left-liberal is: government spending always sounds like a good idea, to them. Should government spend, to stimulate the economy? Check. Spend more on education, so people will (supposedly) be more educated? You betcha. It never occurs to the left-liberal that government just might be incompetent at most things. So that the proposed spending would do nothing at all – or would even make things worse, as it only subsidizes incompetence. For example: Subsidizing an incompetent system of educators. The possibility just doesn’t cross a liberal’s mind.

Krugtron the Laughable

by

In the last two weeks, Huffington Post (to its credit) has published a 3-part takedown of the noxious New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, by the fetching economic historian, Niall Ferguson:

It’s long, but I found it a pleasure on several levels. Ferguson is a civil human being (see the video at the bottom of part I) and always an engaging and thoughtful writer. And Krugman merits the takedown, as a writer who habitually over-states his own rightness and denies his past mistakes (such as his 2002 call in favor of having a housing bubble). Krugman recently called himself “Krugtron the Invincible”, which Ferguson adopted as the title for his series.

Via Cyniconomics. Victory dance (and summary) from Ralph Benko at Forbes.

For fun, here’s Dilbert from June 3:

Dilbert cartoon about Paul Krugman