Yes, this dude and his motivations are totally gross, but: in a general sense, does it really make sense to decide NEVER to attempt to work around/outside the government to improve education? And to never do so using the internet or technology?
I agree with you that the ideal solution would be to defund something generally bad like the prison system and give the money to schools instead. I'm pretty sure that the problem with that is that it isn't possible. What's more, the Palo Alto Clown Brigade (some of whom are not actually clowns but just smart people working on solving silly problems for money) agree that it isn't possible, and most people in their 20s nationwide seem to feel like it isn't possible.
Can you really blame people my age (28) for consistently throwing out government-related solutions to social problems? Maybe this is reductive, but fundamentally your recommendations always seem to involve people organizing themselves and either lobbying the government to do a certain thing or maybe voting for a person that promises to do a certain thing. With the notable exception of gay marriage, in my experience, this has never worked.
We went to war in Iraq anyway. Obama kept Gitmo open. Nobody involved in creating or selling CMOs went to jail. Large-scale do-gooder lobbying of the government tends to fail. Which isn't to say we should totally stop, but can you really blame people for trying to find other options? Maybe the first fumbling steps are pretty stupid, and some of the people involved are wrongheaded, but does that invalidate the whole enterprise?
It seems to me that the answer to your last set of questions is pretty simple: the best educators/professors are not setting educational policy because they are unable to get into a position to do so. More to the point, they probably never will be able to get into that position, and group political action probably won't help them. So the question for individual actors is, are you going to try something, or do nothing?
@melis "For a lot of women, a lot of the time, they will say no in a form they would recognize."
Rather than being a male-female thing, this strikes me as a human communication problem- we try to communicate our preferences to other human beings, and even though we recognize that there is potential for that communication to fail and our preferences to be misconstrued, we still are unable to tailor our communications to ensure that they'll be properly interpreted by the recipient.
Like I don't really understand why there is a need to gender this, this is essentially the human condition. Sure, it manifests itself in male-female contexts like hetero consent vs assault, but it also manifests itself in everything else, all the time.
Ironically my take on PUAs is that they have a similar misapprehension- they go on and on about how easy women are to manipulate, failing to see that all humans are pretty easy to manipulate.
@Ralph Haygood I'm with Ralph please tell us Ken
The part where he makes a brochure about how all the bad parts of his novel are actually good parts and staples it together and purchases it for the British Library for 50 pence is outstanding.
@Dave Bry Mac Miller? Iggy Azalea? KREAYSHAWN? That is just from last year!
@cory dodt@twitter Her age is given in the video as "mid-twenties." Is it your belief that this woman is ten years old? I do not agree that she is ten.
I'm so glad you wrote this! Sullivan's overreaction is the weirdest overreaction!
@Matt What if you strongly dislike both Big Sean and post-Black Album Jay-Z? Wouldn't everything be better if we were just getting nice Kanye solo EPs with some Pusha T features? And maybe 2 Chainz, if things must really be padded out?
David Boreanaz isn't in this movie, Choire! You got my hopes up for nothing!
@ImThraxx Sorry for the typo, should be $37,500, not "$37,500k." Typo nonwithstanding, both numbers are complete fabrications.