10 unbelievable things gavin mcinnes was taught in college

oh, it's which one is the most "unbelievable" btw. probably because mcinnes made half of them up.

9. PUTTING A FINGER IN SOMEONE’S EAR IS RAPE

Gotta lust for life...

Taki still exists, weird!

He was just as crazy as this when he was writing for New York Press in the 90s, but way more charming. This kind of warmed-over PC hoo-hah was already stale back then.

My dad has a degree in physics, and when I showed him some of our assignments he ran to the Dean in a rage,

I suspect that McInnes and his readers don't find this hilarious for the same reasons I do.

Since most of these are probably ke-razy distortions of what his profs were trying to teach him, which he failed to understand and/or pretends to have heard in order to "win" a very stupid argument that he started (<--SOP for aspiring columnists).

even if they did say some of this stuff, big deal. academics aren't perfect oracles of wisdom, you're supposed to think critically about what you're being taught.

“In this class we go through the author’s intentions and into what the book actually was.”

conservatives are really, really butthurt about disregarding authorial intent, huh? if you think about it, holding onto authorial intent underpins a lot of the conservative worldview. cf giving a shit about what the writers of the constitution felt personally about religion, not understanding that saying/writing stuff can be offensive and destructive even if you didn't mean it, etc.

Its either #2 or #10, 'cause the rest are absolutely true.

yeah, #2 gets my vote. it's also the most petty, imo

#4 is my favorite because that kind of bitching made up a good 30-40% of lecture content in all of my archaeology classes.

It's all balloon catheters these days. Every single surgery.

Believable things I was taught by Takimag

1. Gavin McInnes is a douchebag
2. In conservative media circles you will never go hungry making 20-year-old jokes about political correctness.

#10 sounds to me like a (deliberate) misinterpretation of a strain of ethical thought i can't quite recall, but which covers folks like peter singer and other animal rights people. so ya, that's most unbelievable in that i least believe it's what actually happened.

eh its just a guy writin about college, nbd

#10 sounds to me like a (deliberate) misinterpretation of a strain of ethical thought i can't quite recall, but which covers folks like peter singer and other animal rights people. so ya, that's most unbelievable in that i least believe it's what actually happened.

― Antoine Bugleboy (Merdeyeux), Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

really, really, REALLY hate when conservatives disingenuously leverage environmental issues for other, pet concerns.

"If you went to art school in the 1950s, you graduated knowing how to do photorealism with oils. If you got your art-school diploma last year, you graduated knowing how to put a tampon in a teacup."

who is this fuckwit? he clearly hasn't ever met anybody who actually went to art school then or now. there was all kinds of crazy shit going on in the 50s, and very little of it had to do with realism or neoclassicism. and prepare to be shocked... drawing and painting classes are still required core components of a fine arts degree at my university. this kind of strawman bashing just makes me think every other aspect of the article is complete bullshit too.

besides you cant teach someone how to put a tampon in a teacup, thats something youre born with

Totally agree with Aimless upthread. Basically all this article 'proves' is that the author is fucking stupid.

tbh, i kinda suspect he cranks out these takimag articles for the lulz/$$$ and doesn't believe half of it.

what really make me angry I guess is that people are getting paid to write this shit, and I'm not.

timely xp

this article would be at least a little better if gavin asked himself "okay, what's your point?" after every argument he tried to make. "once i had a professor who said something silly" *therefore* "all liberals are dumb"?

anecdata, got to celebrate it

conservatives are really, really butthurt about disregarding authorial intent, huh? if you think about it, holding onto authorial intent underpins a lot of the conservative worldview. cf giving a shit about what the writers of the constitution felt personally about religion, not understanding that saying/writing stuff can be offensive and destructive even if you didn't mean it, etc.

― kanellos (gbx), Sunday, 5 December 2010 19:56 (2 hours ago)

The thing is, this isn't even true. The New Critics are the ones usually credited with getting rid of authorial intent as an interpretive tool, and they're seen as somewhat conservative. Plus a lot of conservative justices advocate looking at the meaning of the text of a law, not the intent of the drafters (e.g. Scalia with his disdain for the use of legislative history).

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

"Though I received a BA in English, I took a lot of math courses in college because it made my parents happy. I did not understand a word of any of them, but 15 years later I am using half-remembered throwaway remarks that may or may not have been made in Calculus 101 as prove that science is dumbed down and real men get BAs in English and/or died before anyone reading this was born."

Funnily enough, the philosophy prof in #10 leading the class down what I imagine was an hour of head-nodding until he reaches the conclusion that it is therefore OK to kill babies and the class goes "...wait, what?" sounds like some pretty Vice-level trolling to me, but maybe I'm mistaken since I never really made it through the longer troll-pieces in Vice

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnGzJJ3LviA