Prager U

[_Doctor Steuss]

First, I didn't find it necessary to "point out that the poet in question is a black-lesbian." My above post was using a part of the PragerU video from the same post - who did point it out. And the reason it was pointed out (which seems so obvious to me - but considering the reactions here, I better explain it) is that the University of Pennsylvania removed the portrait of Shakespeare (A WHITE MALE) and replaced it with a portrait of a poet (A BLACK FEMALE LESBIAN) BECAUSE OF RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Or do you think that this decision was about excellence of individuals in their field.

What was pointed out in the video was necessary because IT WAS/IS THE POINT.

Was her winning a National Book Award, as well as being a National Endowment for the Arts fellow in the early 80's, and her professorship at Hunter, and being the poet laureate of New York in the early 90's because of RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION too?

Or just the decision to put her picture up where a white guy used to be?

[_schreech]

Prager "U" is to shallow alt right-wingers (trumpists) what fair Mormon is to the active members of LDS church who are desperately looking for anything to confirm what the want to believe.

The similarities are pretty solid:

• Donate and be told what you want to hear.
• Shallow spin on complicated issues to keep people from thinking too hard about truths that they don't want to accept.
• Major reliance on Gaslighting and ad hominem.
• Black and white, Us vs Them themes to appease people incapable of thinking along a spectrum and only understand blindly supporting the team they have been conditioned to root for.
• The constant creation and dismantling of imaginary strawmen that blindly accepting followers just accept as reality.
• Incapable of speaking about individuals and instead make sweeping statements about who groups as if they all think and act alike (apostates, leftists, exmormons, progressives, critics, etc) - you know, the thing ceeboo claimed to hate when other people do it...
• Gross misinterpretation of the thoughts, motivations, etc. of people who don't agree with what you have chosen to believe.
• Treats people who believe differently than you as somehow mentally lacking.
• They use trigger words to provide an illusion of academia.

Its pretty twisted and am guessing there is a pretty strong correlation between people who look to prager "u" for their opinion and strong religious belief.

Here is a pretty good assessment of the techniques they use to mislead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7BgrddY18&feature=youtu.be - Im guessing that, like the conditioned TBM avoids anything critical of the Mormon church because it conflicts with what they want and have been told to believe, ceeboo will avoid watching this video.

Whats hilarious is that a site funded by billionaires, backed by massively wealthy corporations and has a huge annual budget mostly geared toward advertising (also similar to certain religions), has convinced lemmings, like ceeboo, to give them money so they can continue to tell him what to believe and further drive a wedge between people on different sides of the political spectrum.

Media outlets like Prager "U" are the problem but the simpleton supporters will never be convinced otherwise because, of course, Prager "U" has told them differently and Prager "U" has a "U" in their name.

[_Ceeboo]

I'm starting to think that there may not be that many donations forthcoming from y'all.

[_Dr. Shades]

Why does a website that's funded by billionaires and wealthy corporations, that earns advertising revenue anyway, need my money in the first place?

[_Gray Ghost]

I once recall a Prager U ad about how caring what women think is for wussy, unmanly men.

This is what passes for intellectualism in the modern kook right.

[_Res Ipsa]

First, I didn't find it necessary to "point out that the poet in question is a black-lesbian." My above post was using a part of the PragerU video from the same post - who did point it out. And the reason it was pointed out (which seems so obvious to me - but considering the reactions here, I better explain it) is that the University of Pennsylvania removed the portrait of Shakespeare (A WHITE MALE) and replaced it with a portrait of a poet (A BLACK FEMALE LESBIAN) BECAUSE OF RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Or do you think that this decision was about excellence of individuals in their field.

What was pointed out in the video was necessary because IT WAS/IS THE POINT.

(emphasis added)

And this is a perfect example of what is wrong with Prager U: Prager U taught Ceeboo that the University removed portrait of a white playwright and replaced it with a portrait of a black lesbian poet. Except that what Prager U taught him is a lie.

Here's what actually happened: some STUDENTS took down the bard's portrait and delivered it to the head of the English department. An unknown person then put up the portrait of Lorde.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2016/12/s ... it-removed

What did the university do? The university then TOOK DOWN the portrait of Lorde and replaced it with a collage of 50 different writers, corresponding to the 50 writers that the university expects its students to master. The link shows the collage. Given the prominent location, which better represents the University's English Department: one English playwright or the wide range of authors that the department teaches?

https://www.thedp.com/article/2016/12/c ... udre-lorde

Why did the right lie? Because there's no "red meat" in the true story. There's nothing to fuel their outrage. They can't use it to advance their claim that liberalism is ruining America.

So, they lie.

Tell me again about why I should be giving money to the place.

[_Lemmie]

First, I didn't find it necessary to "point out that the poet in question is a black-lesbian." My above post was using a part of the PragerU video from the same post - who did point it out.

So you didn't point it out, you just quoted someone else who pointed it out.

I really hate it when I accidentally post a quote that doesn't say what I wanted to say. Damn quotes.

....And the reason it was pointed out (which seems so obvious to me - but considering the reactions here, I better explain it) is that the University of Pennsylvania removed the portrait of Shakespeare (A WHITE MALE) and replaced it with a portrait of a poet (A BLACK FEMALE LESBIAN) BECAUSE OF RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Or do you think that this decision was about excellence of individuals in their field.

What was pointed out in the video was necessary because IT WAS/IS THE POINT.

And yet IT WASN'T/ISN'T The POINT at all. The OP quote from PU has the story wrong.

ETA: which I see res Ipsa has pointed out.

[_Gray Ghost]

First, I didn't find it necessary to "point out that the poet in question is a black-lesbian." My above post was using a part of the PragerU video from the same post - who did point it out. And the reason it was pointed out (which seems so obvious to me - but considering the reactions here, I better explain it) is that the University of Pennsylvania removed the portrait of Shakespeare (A WHITE MALE) and replaced it with a portrait of a poet (A BLACK FEMALE LESBIAN) BECAUSE OF RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Or do you think that this decision was about excellence of individuals in their field.

What was pointed out in the video was necessary because IT WAS/IS THE POINT.

Panties in the bunch because they changed the decor?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Thank you Res Ipsa for the background of what actually happened. After seeing the manufactured brouhaha was over Audre, I didn't even think to dig further.

[_canpakes]

Ceebs, why is it necessary to point out that the poet in question is a ‘black-lesbian’, while not bothering to identify her by her name?

First, I didn't find it necessary to "point out that the poet in question is a black-lesbian." My above post was using a part of the PragerU video from the same post - who did point it out. And the reason it was pointed out (which seems so obvious to me - but considering the reactions here, I better explain it) is that the University of Pennsylvania removed the portrait of Shakespeare (A WHITE MALE) and replaced it with a portrait of a poet (A BLACK FEMALE LESBIAN) BECAUSE OF RACE/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Or do you think that this decision was about excellence of individuals in their field.

What was pointed out in the video was necessary because IT WAS/IS THE POINT.

Ceebs, that is the language that you chose to represent this event.

Put another way, would it have seemed strange to have phrased this incident as, ‘portrait of white male taken down and replaced by picture of Audre Lorde’? What message would you be trying to convey?

Anyway, here (again) is some additional insight that you will probably not want to consider, because it doesn’t come from Prager:

College sophomore and English major Katherine Kvellestad commended the students’ action. She said the choice of replacing the original portrait with one of Audre Lorde sends a positive message.

“You don’t necessarily need to have a portrait of Shakespeare up,” Kvellestad said. “He’s pretty iconic.”

...

(Mike) Benz added that college curriculums typically focus on European and Western ideals, and outside texts can sometimes be ignored or set aside.

...

Penn English professor and Department Chair Jed) Esty emailed English majors and minors on Dec. 8 with the statement he released to the DP. He expressed the department’s dedication to exploring a diverse range of works, both old and new.

“We invite everyone to join us in the task of critical thinking about the changing nature of authorship, the history of language, and the political life of symbols,” Esty wrote.

So, is it not possible that since Shakespeare, there may be other authors or poets that might be worthy of some recognition, on this small scale? Or do we just limit ourselves to featuring portraits of the same small set of classic authors, forever unable to remove their image for fear of offending the Prager U bunch?