17 minute read
by Dillon O’Toole
Contemporary Stupidity: A Response to
By Madeline Perez
Advertisement
On April 14th, 2021, Binghamton Review published an article entitled “Contemporary Arrogance.” Now, as Copy Desk Chief, I should have already been familiar with the article, but it’s not uncommon for another E-board member to put pieces through the editing process, so I never saw it. The publication of this article was, in my opinion, the worst oversight I have ever seen from the Review. As someone who’s partially responsible, I regret not watching with a closer eye. The frustration I felt reading the article was surely unparalleled by mortal man. Honestly, part of me did feel grossed out being a representative of a publication that would publish something so uninformed and blatantly transphobic, and it’s because of this that I’m going to write my first ever rebuttal.
Now, for someone talking about arrogance, I find it really fucking ironic to write under the pseudonym “Johnathan Swift.” To implicitly tie your own illiterate ramblings to the likeliness of a famous author seems pretty arrogant, indeed. This hypocrisy seems to be a core theme of the article as he pretentiously describes the snobbery and perceived moral superiority of others without considering the fact he is actively trying to put himself above these people in terms of “intelligence” and “values.”
The blatant pseudo-intellectualism runs rampant through the piece as smart-sounding words are thrown in to distract from the fact that the sentences themselves make no fucking sense. Redundant words and phrases are used consistently throughout, as is the case with the way he talks about Bourgeois Values, the phrase “verbally insulted,” and many others like it. So much of this piece is effectively saying nothing, which I’m not particularly mad about considering the stupid claims made when he is saying something. Anyone who has ever passed a middle school English class would have no trouble finding the blatant, grammatical errors that plague the article worse than 14th-century Europe. The pathetic, reductionist attempt to use Freud and Nietzche to wrongly support his batshit claims makes it clear he was more interested in sounding smart than making a lick of sense.
Let’s begin looking at the actual content of this article, as much as it will inevitably pain me. He starts off by criticizing Binghamton’s rally against anti-Asian discrimination, implying its futility when considering that the spike of anti-Asian hate crime and discrimination are things outside of the university’s control. While he is correct in that the university cannot go back in time and prevent hate crimes, he purposefully refuses to consider any benefits rallies like these may serve to raise awareness of injustice and to help others feel like intense societal problems like those that bred the Atlanta Spa Shootings are not just being swept under the rug. Instead, he claims that activists should consider the true perpetrator of racism in this country: affirmative action.
Though the out-of-context average admission rate statistics he gives (with an “Asian students tend to score higher” (on what exactly??) thrown in for good measure) make it extremely hard to decipher what exactly he’s trying to prove, I am quite familiar with the conservative spiel on the evils of affirmative action. Many right-wing talking heads deliberately push the false narrative that affirmative action is an anti-white, anti-Asian phenomenon designed to favor underqualified marginalized groups. They also may peddle the idea that affirmative action is damaging to these groups because it both undermines the capabilities of women and minorities and sets them up for failure because of these aforementioned under-qualifications. Let’s break this down. Affirmative action as we know it does not lower the standards for minority groups but can influence their selection among equally qualified candidates, and the choosing of unqualified candidates over qualified ones is explicitly prohibited by federal regulations. It is also found that, in many cases, affirmative action may raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by offering them equal opportunities for employment, but let’s not fool ourselves that conservative figureheads actually care about this point.
The reason I’m focusing on the rebuttal of common conservative talk show points here is because it’s transparent that this article is heavily influenced and tries to regurgitate the same hateful, fear-mongering shit masquerading under concerns about the degradation of modern culture and “the children”. Our society saw this while fighting for the legalization of gay marriage and I continue to see the same blind hatred toward the transgender community and LGBT pride. “Johnathan Swift” states that the “LGBT movement” has become “an aggressive crusade against reasonable criticism.” Ignoring the fact that made no fucking sense, the underlying message of “gay people bad” was astonishingly clear. He then rages against the fact that “transgenderism is proudly displayed,” as they (transgendereds) denounce science and force children to have sex changes. Nice try, but as much as you suck up to him, Big Daddy Steven Crowder is not going to fuck you.
In reality, the argument for “scientific evidence” in order to validate the existence of trans people is a thin veil for transphobia. While it has been proven several times that the neural processes of trans people align more with the gender they identify as over the gender they were born as, this point is actually irrelevant other than it proves that he’s actually the one denouncing science. Trans people don’t need to prove that they’re trans just because you don’t like it in the same way
that gay people don’t need to scientifically prove they experience same-sex attraction. It’s just who they are, and demanding they need a scientific reason to exist (a stance also known as trans-medicalism) is, frankly, stupid. Does “Johnathan” have a scientific reason why he’s so bad at writing cohesive arguments?
“The children, won’t someone please think about the children!” “Mr. Swift” cries while clutching the metaphorical pearl necklace. Frankly, the idea that trans people are trying to force children to change their sex is so false it’s laughable. In reality, the phenomenon the right continues to so wildly mischaracterize as “forcing children to undergo sex change that they will most likely regret” is the prescription of puberty blockers to transgender youth. There are a lot of lies and misinformation around this topic so I’m going to talk about it a little. Puberty blockers are prescribed, monitored, and administered by a pediatric endocrinologist, and are both safe and completely reversible. In order for this treatment to be considered, children must show long-lasting patterns of gender non-conformity and dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty. If under the age of medical consent, parental consent must be given. The treatment aims to “pause” puberty so that it can be considered if a child’s gender identity is enduring and to give families time to consider medical, social, and legal struggles they may face. Overall, the treatment is successful in improving mental health, societal ostracization, and can possibly eliminate the need for future surgery. No permanent surgeries or procedures are given to children and especially not without parental consent, as the article falsely states. This blatant misinformation has real-world ramifications as it continues to make life harder for transgender individuals.
“J. Swift’’ goes on to complain about how some people are proud of their sexuality and “wave it around like a badge of courage,” and how he’s annoyed about how a WHOLE MONTH has clearly been STOLEN by the gays. To that, I say this: you gonna cry about it? Also, how, pray tell, do you wave something like a badge? Maybe if you were less homophobic, the gay people would teach you how to write proper similies.
He then goes on about how anti-maskers are oppressed by your “typical Binghamton student” who will VERBALLY INSULT you if you dare not follow campus policy on wearing a mask. He also states that masks have no purpose after vaccination, so students who continue to wear one are effectively just virtue signaling and pretending to be better than everyone else. Obviously, this is entirely false, as it is commonly known that no COVID vaccine is 100% effective and that you can still be infected and transmit the virus to others after vaccination. “Waa, people are pretentious for wanting to not get sick or risk getting other people sick.” That’s how you sound right now, Johnnie-boy. For someone who is criticizing these people for valuing “ideology over fact,” he sure seems to be objectively wrong a lot.
Next, in this never-ending illiterate dumpster fire of an article, “Johnathan” aims to blame students for being in college debt, claiming that many feel entitled to a college education and create their own problems by pursuing higher education. Good news! I totally almost agree with him. The national student debt is an issue, and not everyone should be pushed to go to college! However, he’s completely talking out of his ass when he blames these problems on the decisions of students. The price of college is actually, and I’m not exaggerating here, way too high, and students are not asking for too much when they dream of a life where they can make a livable wage and not actively want to kill themselves. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, college tuition and fees have gone up 1,200% since 1980, yet a college degree is more important than ever to succeed. The high expense of college and the need for a college education to make good money is a huge factor that contributes to the low socioeconomic mobility in this country. The financial issues of students reflect a larger problem of corporate greed, and it’s not the fault of their “arrogance” that teenagers are pushed by societal norms into the arms of colleges that are just looking to make another buck. To properly address these problems, colleges should be made cheaper and students should be able to make a good living without the need for a college degree.
Our esteemed author begins to end his piece with evidence that “rules no longer apply equally to citizens.” I use the term “evidence” here to mean made-up political grievances stolen from idiots on the far-right since nothing in this article is factually supported. In what world were BLM rioters met with “little resistance?” Was it the 104 instances of cars driving into protesters? Or was it the widespread use of tear-gas on peaceful protesters in more than 100 US cities? I could go on forever about the use of rubber bullets and instances of police violence during these protests but I feel like I’ve already illustrated how he’s full of shit. He’s also delusional if he thinks that illegal immigrants are permitted to cross the border when since October, arrests at the border have more than doubled that of the entire previous year.
In trying to prove the “arrogance” of anti-racist and LGBT communities, “Johnathan Swift” has adequately shown the boggling extent of his own arrogance. His unsupported criticisms of things beyond his ken were both annoying and yucky, and I hope I was able to shed some light on the truth of these matters. His ending claim that, unless something changes, society will degenerate into the “intellectually based caste system” mirrored in Brave New World was laugh-out-loud funny, and I hope he considers a career in comedy after this.
Racism In The Classroom
By Charles Forman
Iwould like to begin by saying that racism has no place at Binghamton University and should be dealt with through the appropriate forums. This article will focus more on the issue of free speech and, rather than racism itself, what we should do when racism occurs on campus.
As students, we expect a certain standard when we walk into (or log onto) the classroom. We expect that we will be treated with respect and kept safe. However, the unfortunate truth is that, too often, this is not the case. Students across the country have to deal with bullying, offensive slurs, and other intolerable forms of racism. Schools such as the University of Southern California have recognized that racism is unacceptable in the classroom and have taken action to implement real-world consequences. In one instance where a member of faculty said a racial slur under the guise of teaching Mandarin, the university let him go due to the embarrassment he caused both himself, as well as the school. At Binghamton University, there has been a petition going around about a recent similar incident involving racism in the classroom. “In early March of 2021 during a Zoom (virtual) class session a student was heard using racist epithets directed at the TA. These disgusting descriptions were heard by the TA and many students who were present that day, including many students of color.”
These actions are not acceptable anywhere, let alone at a place many of us consider our second home. Racism is commonly used as a tactic by bullies to torment their peers. It is cruel and should not be tolerated.
In the United States, we have struggled with systemic racism for hundreds of years. While our past would be wildly unacceptable by today’s standards, it took time and extensive learning to know the ongoing consequences of our history. In the last month, the fatal shootings of two minorities have sparked nationwide protests protesting police brutality. It’s clear there is a problem, but what is the solution?
A group on campus called the Graduate Student Employee Union (GSEU) feels that there should be harsh punishment for the type of incident that occurred in March. Their petition stems from a comment made by the Assistant Vice President of Diversity, Dr. Nicole Sirju-Johnson, who said that “everyone has as much a right to be racist as they have a right to be culturally competent.” While this is blatantly not true, it does spark a conversation about freedom of speech on campus, and in the classroom. The be some sort of repercussions to this, such as sensitivity training. I reached out to the GSEU to ask them about completing sensitivity training as an alternative to removal from class, and they gave the following statement:
“I believe if an instructor feels unsafe with a certain student in their class, they should have the right to remove someone who is creating a hostile space. But I think mandatory training could be a worthwhile alternative as long as victims are still comfortable with an individual in their classroom.”
Of course, if an instructor feels unsafe with a student in the classroom, they should not have to teach a class to them. However, people don’t always know the extent of what they’re saying and it’s an unfortunate truth that many similar incidents have received no backlash in the past. As a society, we are striving to become more progressive, and I believe it’s important to educate people about the consequences of their actions. Of course, everything should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and more severe actions require more severe punishment. I know I try to be respectful of all people no matter where they are from or what they look like, and I think respect is a universal concept that must always remain in place. When people use racist terms as a tool to disrespect others, it should not be tolerated in our community, but if we use our resources as a top-ranked university to educate them about their actions, we can come together as a diverse, thriving community.
GSEU is now calling for removal of Dr. Sirju-Johnson over these remarks.
While the GSEU is unhappy about Dr. Sirju-Johnson’s words, they have a larger focus on going after the bigger problem on campus: the fact that students can be openly racist in the classroom with little consequence. While I do not advocate for the full expulsion or removal of students from our community when racism occurs, as the GSEU proposes, I agree that in some incidents, such as the one that occurred in March, further punishment may be necessary. I also believe that there is an educational opportunity that can arise from events such as these.
Sometimes, racism can come in the form of a micro-aggression and not mean any harm. While this is still unacceptable behavior, is removal from class warranted? There should
Social Media At Large
By Patrick McAuliffe
Does anyone really read the Terms and Conditions that accompany setting up a new social media account? For all anyone may know, Facebook or Twitter could ban one’s account for any reason, at any time. Many conservatives believe that their pages and accounts disproportionately suffer from bias on behalf of large social media companies, although proving this with empirical data on which accounts and pages are removed is difficult when a private company, eager to withhold this information, does not allow the collection of such data. Ironically, many on the political right traditionally believe that private businesses have the right to operate their businesses as they see fit, such as in the June 2018 Supreme Court case about the Christian baker nearly forced to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. The removal of President Trump from nearly all mainstream social media platforms and online outlets following the events of January 6th’s Capitol riot triggered something in many people’s intuitions, mine included, about social media companies’ role in regulating public discourse.
Despite my reservations about Trump’s platform and rhetoric, it is undeniable that much of today’s media is stacked against him. His nationalistic speeches frightened many political pundits, and the comparisons to the rise of Nazi Germany knew no limit. For all of the tough talk, his administration was a mixed bag of policy, from regulating bump stocks to lowering the price of insulin to continuing President Obama’s deportation and border detention policies, among many other policies that he enacted. In the eyes of this humble writer, both traditional and social media outlets were more frightened by what he said than by what he did.
However, what Trump said eventually did get him into trouble. After weeks of disputing the 2020 election results, Trump made a speech on the National Mall at a “Save America” rally your voices heard” proved, in my mind, inconclusive in determining whether the President directly encouraged the directionless violence that followed his speech. His words led to the second impeachment of his tenure as President, which he was, again, acquitted of in the Senate. Regardless, the events of that day were cataclysmic for his influence in the public forum.
For various lengths of time, ranging from temporarily to the end of his presidential term to permanently, various social media sites removed all of Trump’s accounts on their platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, Twitch, and Shopify, among others. They cited the events of January 6th and threats of future incitement of violence as their reasoning behind the bans. Based on what was actually said, however, it seems that the only thing Trump is guilty of in this entire situation is refusing to acknowledge the results of the election. His supporters took it upon themselves to choose a more violent route in expressing their anger. Now that the dust is settled, the question becomes “Who’s next to receive the banhammer on all mainstream social media fronts?”
Once such a nearly monopolistic ban on a user has been put into effect, with some people vehemently cheering it on, the precedent has now been set for these companies to do the same to others. It becomes difficult to argue that people removed from “mainstream” social media sites should merely relocate elsewhere, especially in the case of Apple, Google, and Android removing Parler, the lesser-known alternative to Twitter, from their app stores. When every large company seems to stack the deck against a person, group, or alternative platform, can the market of social media be truly free?
These platforms have become such an integral part of how humans communicate in modern times, and to see actors being actively shut out of them is akin to being ostracized from nearly all society. My answer to this problem is not to immediately jump to government action, but for people from all walks of life to seriously consider just how much power that large social media platforms have over the public discourse. Be wary of the stances that these companies take and the people that they discourage or outright ban from participating in them. The Internet is the public bazaar of the world, and when a few large companies act as its gatekeepers, alarm bells should be sounding in the mind of anyone that values true freedom. Raise those alarm bells to anyone that will listen, even if it starts with something as simple as thoroughly reading a platform’s Terms and Conditions.
that was followed by the march on the Capitol building. A BBC News analysis of key quotes from his speech, including “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” and “Peacefully and patriotically make
