Time to amend. A previous comment of mine. Regarding the Weinstein firing. Weinstein's former colleague, Peter Dorman, has said some interesting things since Professor Ivermectin got himself pink-slipped out in the pacific northwest---fairly or unfairly. I've read a lot about this over the past week or so. I suggest the firing had a bit …
Time to amend. A previous comment of mine. Regarding the Weinstein firing. Weinstein's former colleague, Peter Dorman, has said some interesting things since Professor Ivermectin got himself pink-slipped out in the pacific northwest---fairly or unfairly. I've read a lot about this over the past week or so. I suggest the firing had a bit more complexity to it than the tale that played out in the media. Briefly, that Weinstein's firing owed as much to the usual petty feuds, power machinations, and political intrigue that occur at regular intervals on all college campuses between the college brethren, than it did to any other factor. (see Mary McCarthy's "The Groves of Academe").
That certain "elements," perhaps a "posse" of influential elements, from both the Evergreen faculty, administration and alumni, might have been circling for Weinstein's scalp long before he was actually fired. And that the posse saw their chance during The Great Woke Uprising and made their move. It wasn't necessarily an instance of an untenured professor being fired for speaking his mind---exercising his 1st amendment rights if you must---but an instance of a powerful group who wanted, for any number of reasons, Weinstein gone. From campus. For good. And they certainly had to have weighed all the events taking place on campus and in the media, and surely knew that by actually getting rid of Weinstein at that particular moment would create an even bigger shit storm in all corners---which eventually it certainly did.
In other words, the Evergreen State consensus was that let's get rid of him now, damn the blowback over the 1st amendment stuff, the blowback will blow over, this is America, everybody forgets everything sooner rather than later, and we'll never have an opportunity like this one again to get rid of the son-of-a- bitch, and besides, the alumni donors. Reasons they weren't about to share publicly. I would gather they even factored in the half-mil payout they'd have to shell out later for Weinstein's controversial dismissal, before actually firing him. Perhaps an anonymous donor who also agreed that it was in Evergreen's interest to issue Weinstein his walking papers, came forward, or snuck in the back door, with the half-mil. This stuff happens more often than most people think on America's campuses.
I suspect too that the true masters were moneyed puppeteers, as they always are, the ones who write the checks---wealthy alumni donors. Probably not a lot of them showering money on a school like Evergreen State, but enough of them to matter. And the "posse," the university hierarchy, felt that in the long run appeasing the funders and givers would be the priority. Whatever else this was, it was bad PR for Evergreen State. Important to keep in mind that most colleges today are in a precarious financial state, and have been for the last decade or more---especially small, unorthodox liberal arts schools with Evergreen State's profile.
Didn't F. Scott Fitzgerald once remark, "the Evergreen State alumni---they aren't like you and me?" This is all conjecture of course, which is always an amusing exercise. Of course, if any of this is accurate some would argue it makes the firing even more insidious. And how do we know what Weinstein's motivations were, his motivations for taking the stances and saying the things that he did? We don't. We know what he says, and that is all.
But reading Dorman's comments led me to this conjecture. Through his comments, I feel that Dormand is more than sufficiently believable, that his studied disinterest in the entire affair was genuine, and that he maintains a sincere belief that none of this was good for anybody. And ultimately by his summation of it all: that nobody involved--- Weinstein, Evergreen faculty and administrators, assorted students---chose, or either found, the high road on this one.
Gutterdandy: by the way, I'm receiving your replies to e.pierce. Good to see someone else policing him up, though. I actually find it perversely amusing. PSYCHOTIC TROLL!
Wouldn't "incompetent moron" be a double negative? As in: no matter what effort I make to understand e. pierce and meet him on the "common moron" ground on which he operates, I Fail?
Who mentioned "policing?" I'm a well-paid troll in the employ of a radical group of Amish "cultural marxists" operating out of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Here to specifically to engage you. You get kicked out of here it's back to milking cows and tendin' the hay harvest for me.
Time to amend. A previous comment of mine. Regarding the Weinstein firing. Weinstein's former colleague, Peter Dorman, has said some interesting things since Professor Ivermectin got himself pink-slipped out in the pacific northwest---fairly or unfairly. I've read a lot about this over the past week or so. I suggest the firing had a bit more complexity to it than the tale that played out in the media. Briefly, that Weinstein's firing owed as much to the usual petty feuds, power machinations, and political intrigue that occur at regular intervals on all college campuses between the college brethren, than it did to any other factor. (see Mary McCarthy's "The Groves of Academe").
That certain "elements," perhaps a "posse" of influential elements, from both the Evergreen faculty, administration and alumni, might have been circling for Weinstein's scalp long before he was actually fired. And that the posse saw their chance during The Great Woke Uprising and made their move. It wasn't necessarily an instance of an untenured professor being fired for speaking his mind---exercising his 1st amendment rights if you must---but an instance of a powerful group who wanted, for any number of reasons, Weinstein gone. From campus. For good. And they certainly had to have weighed all the events taking place on campus and in the media, and surely knew that by actually getting rid of Weinstein at that particular moment would create an even bigger shit storm in all corners---which eventually it certainly did.
In other words, the Evergreen State consensus was that let's get rid of him now, damn the blowback over the 1st amendment stuff, the blowback will blow over, this is America, everybody forgets everything sooner rather than later, and we'll never have an opportunity like this one again to get rid of the son-of-a- bitch, and besides, the alumni donors. Reasons they weren't about to share publicly. I would gather they even factored in the half-mil payout they'd have to shell out later for Weinstein's controversial dismissal, before actually firing him. Perhaps an anonymous donor who also agreed that it was in Evergreen's interest to issue Weinstein his walking papers, came forward, or snuck in the back door, with the half-mil. This stuff happens more often than most people think on America's campuses.
I suspect too that the true masters were moneyed puppeteers, as they always are, the ones who write the checks---wealthy alumni donors. Probably not a lot of them showering money on a school like Evergreen State, but enough of them to matter. And the "posse," the university hierarchy, felt that in the long run appeasing the funders and givers would be the priority. Whatever else this was, it was bad PR for Evergreen State. Important to keep in mind that most colleges today are in a precarious financial state, and have been for the last decade or more---especially small, unorthodox liberal arts schools with Evergreen State's profile.
Didn't F. Scott Fitzgerald once remark, "the Evergreen State alumni---they aren't like you and me?" This is all conjecture of course, which is always an amusing exercise. Of course, if any of this is accurate some would argue it makes the firing even more insidious. And how do we know what Weinstein's motivations were, his motivations for taking the stances and saying the things that he did? We don't. We know what he says, and that is all.
But reading Dorman's comments led me to this conjecture. Through his comments, I feel that Dormand is more than sufficiently believable, that his studied disinterest in the entire affair was genuine, and that he maintains a sincere belief that none of this was good for anybody. And ultimately by his summation of it all: that nobody involved--- Weinstein, Evergreen faculty and administrators, assorted students---chose, or either found, the high road on this one.
I’d say highly plausible conjecture. The entire affair has the distinct aroma of small minded academia. .
STFU
Gutterdandy: by the way, I'm receiving your replies to e.pierce. Good to see someone else policing him up, though. I actually find it perversely amusing. PSYCHOTIC TROLL!
Sorry 'bout that Latouche!
You're not to blame---taibbi needs to fix the "reply" threads here. Happens all the time
True enough Latouche. e.pierce needs some of its own medicine but others shouldn't have to read it.
Homework and perhaps a moment of self-reflection and understanding.
PGG.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-cultural-marxism/
Wouldn't "incompetent moron" be a double negative? As in: no matter what effort I make to understand e. pierce and meet him on the "common moron" ground on which he operates, I Fail?
AHHHH SHADDUP
LOL -- run outta gas?
SCREW YOU MOTHERF*CKER!
Who mentioned "policing?" I'm a well-paid troll in the employ of a radical group of Amish "cultural marxists" operating out of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Here to specifically to engage you. You get kicked out of here it's back to milking cows and tendin' the hay harvest for me.
STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!
SHUT IT!
I still think you and I should collaborate on a screenplay. Think about it.
SHADDUP
ahhhhhhhhhhh SHADDDDUP!