Yale Columnist Enraged by the Politeness of Pro-Life Students on Campus
“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory.”
She is actually angry that these students were polite and nice. She says it made her even angrier.
The College Fix reports:
Yale columnist shares anger at ‘polite’ and calm pro-life peers
“Logical” and civil debates can be “dangerous” according to a columnist for Yale University’s student newspaper.
Bianca Nam recently wrote a column for the Yale Daily News where she shared her frustration with the campus pro-life group – because they were polite.
“One of the angriest moments I’ve had at Yale was last year’s Bulldog Days, when I saw a table on cross campus that was manned by members of a pro-life club,” Nam (pictured) wrote on April 11. “Grouped around the table, which was spread with sonograms and fetal diagrams, the students were inviting passersby to engage in logical debates about fetal personhood and abortion ethics.”
“They were polite,” she wrote. “They held their voices low and spoke slowly and calmly. They had relaxed, open smiles.”
The pro-lifers’ willingness to respectfully share their views got under Nam’s skin.
She wrote:
“Would you like to discuss this? Let’s talk about it respectfully,” they insisted. “We can debate about this.” Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all; simpering, the male students gestured to the only female student with them. Their wide, innocent eyes asked the unspoken question: how could they possibly be misogynist when one of their club members was a woman?
She said to even “bring the legality of abortion into question” and ask about when personhood begins is “a false path meant to distract someone from the true issue and its massive repercussions for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.”
“The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate,” she wrote.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Women” like Dylan Mulvaney, in some strange way, are preferable to these perpetually angry leftist women that have contempt for those that dare think or behave differently. But they love Dylan. Toxic femininity.
leftists seem to have an “anger” issue. They seem angry most all the time and usually look and sound angry. Is this a rapidly spreading mental illness that we have not heard of before?
It’s simple: they live lives of self-righteous emotion rather than rational thought.
It’s easier to strongly adopt the opinions of others when you don’t have the disclipline to derive one’s own from first principles.
As a result, when they are deprived of their only coping mechanism, they panic.
They are offended to be put in a position where they re forced to respond with rationality they re incapable of.
Physical sloth cursed us to be slavers; mental sloth curses us to be slaves.
You could look at it that way. Or, the same world that crucified Jesus wants to crucify His followers. What? You expected to be liked? John 15; first the world hated me; the world will hate you.
I’m on my phone so that puts limits on how many rabbits I can chase down holes. I’m sure a great number of this blogs readers are grateful
John 15:18: (NIV) “The World Hates The Disciples.” Have we gone end stage Weimar Republic? I think we’ve gone en stage Genesis 19; Sodom. The men of Sodom were struck blind but still didn’t turn away from their lusts.i don’t know about you, but if I’m doing everything by Braille when the sun comes up (and I wasn’t when it went down) I’m examining my life choices. Not the men of Sodom. Remind you of anyone?
Can’t diagnose it, but they seem to imagine themselves in ways that completely contradict what they say and do. They are the most hateful of lovers, metaphorically. Their tolerant repression grows. It’s amazing they have got so far, but good people are too tolerant, sometimes to the point of great abuse before they wake up.
Perhaps Bianca Nam would have felt more comfortable if the pro-life groups were burning down the library?
Politeness is a strategy in a debate. It’s a mistake to attribute it to the right, however. Cognitive dissonance shows up as ad hominem attacks on both left and right.
“Your inoffensiveness offends and enrages me!
Fascist Nazi!
Are you taking videos of this? Are you stealing my soul?
Aaaarrrrrrrggghhh!”
A false path meant to distract from the she-columnist’s being a selfish, heathenish, stupid, loud mouthed bimbo.
“The discussion never should have been entertained”
It was entertained right much in 1973 and a good bit since then.
Hmmm, a woman becoming outraged at the offer to engage in a civil, polite and logical discourse from men. She claims they are misogynistic for even attempting to speak out on the topic. One might easily view this woman as engaging in misandry or be forgiven for thinking her to be mentally unbalanced.
Xx/xy=baby
Men have every right to speak to their child
And every other issue.
Got it! The down voter doesn’t believe men should have the right to free speech. They were too cowardly to post a comment though so either unable or unwilling to engage in discourse which probably explains why they don’t want men to engage in free speech; the down voter can’t perform in a competitive environment. Go cry harder.
She was dealing with people who wish to discuss the topic on a rational level. She, on the other hand, wants to bring in emotion and feeeelings.
Maybe they should have just grabbed a stick no bigger than their thumb and beat her with it, then forced her into the kitchen to make a sandwich?
That’s literally what she’s screaming about: “They aren’t acting like my caricature of right-wingers!”
Of course, she’d have complained either way. Which brings us back to stereotypes….
Of course Nam is angry and confused: when she’s spending every waking moment around screeching weasels, she expects everyone else she meets to be a screeching weasel too.
I would call it cognitive dissonance. She wants Conservatives to be ugly, rude, and ill-mannered because she has been told they are morally bankrupt. Instead, they are attractive personally, polite, and worst of all, able to present compelling counterpoints to every argument she knows how to make.
She still wants to win, but at some level, she knows it is immoral to take the life of a baby.
Bingo.
When you have been taught to hate the “enemy” … but struggle to do so when they aren’t.
And it makes you even angrier.
How dare they not fulfill her preconceived notions of how she believes pro-lifers act.
Throwing preconceived notions back in the faces of those having them can be fun. I had some amateur psychologist tell me that I had grown a beard because I wanted to hide.
My reply to her (always a her for some reason) was, “Okay, let’s take your assumption and follow it through. Let’s do some analysis. I am 6-2, and tip the scales at 285. I wear a size 52 tall sport jacket. My nickname is “Bear”. My beard is full, big, and red. Now, please. YOU tell ME: what am I hiding from?”
The reaction was balled fists and stomping away.
I had some amateur psychologist tell me that I had grown a beard because I wanted to hide.
_____________________________________________________
have a close relative that’s a shrink–have seen her and her long-suffering husband maybe half a dozen times in the last twenty years–her condescending attitude and psychobabble nonsense could provoke a tortoise–her worldview is THE worldview and others that don’t share her view are “suffering” from some delusion or mental malady–lord–had not seen her and her husband for six years when last “summoned” for a chat at their mcmansion–after the usual inane pleasantries at the front door my lady and i walked into the parlour and our hostess takes me by both hands, looks me in the face and says ” i still sense a lot of anger in you. “–lord–am grateful my lady had her hand around my left bicep and gently squeezed, chuckled at the shrink and said “I certainly haven’t noticed “–and that was the end of that line of nonsense for the evening–the shrink was more interested in hearing herself lecture than in anything anyone else may or may not have to say–in a word, insufferable–have noticed over the years that leftists (and especially the “educated” ones) are some of the rudest, most self-centered people on this planet–indifferent to rational thought, conflicting opinions or indeed any sort of independent thought / assertion
LOL – glad you didn’t prove her right. 😉
A psychologist encounters a psychiatrist in the corridor of a medical building.
Psychologist: “good morning!”
Psychiatrist: “no, no, no. What you REALLY mean is;…”
But you see, that’s why it’s a psychological thing. You can’t obviously hide, but your psyche thinks you can. So it does this dance where your beard serves as a shield, to, ummm… OK, not sure where it goes from here. I stopped reading Psychology Today at least 30 years ago.
Step back a few centuries and substitute “the flatness of the Earth” for “abortion” and her argument is the same.
Nah. No educated person has thought the earth to be flat for over 2000 years.
The idea that anyone ridiculed Columbus because they thought the earth was flat was invented by Washington Irving. People ridiculed Columbus because he was a crank, with a theory that was clearly wrong. His theory was wrong, and his critics were right, but he’s the luckiest crank in history, because he accidentally discovered a continent that nobody, including him, ever suspected was there.
Educated people believed Earth was spherical and about 25,000 miles in diameter ever since 240 BC when Eratosthenes found a way to measure the circumference through the poles. (The main uncertainty in his work is that there were no well-defined measurement units in his time.) By Columbus’s time, it was also possible to roughly estimate the distance from Spain to the Pacific coast of China overland via the Silk Road at around 10 to 15,000 miles.
So the distance by sea was also about 10 to 15,000 miles – and sailing from England to Portugal was considered a long journey. Long before a ship could sail 10,000 miles without touching land, the sailors would be dead of thirst, starvation, and scurvy. Even if somehow you could keep the crew alive, barnacles would cover the bottom and cut the speed in half, and the wood wood rot and fall apart.
But Columbus somehow thought the world was 1/3 smaller than everyone else did. He _needed_ to believe that to think that he could sail west and live to find India. I suspect that he’d heard the saga of Lief Ericson, and if you believed that, land was much closer than most people thought. I suspect also that he knew Basque fishermen were sailing northwest, and coming back months later with their holds full of dried cod – that’s possible if they fished the Grand Banks and landed on or near Newfoundland to dry their catch. It’s unlikely that they revealed their secrets to Columbus, but he could deduce that there was a rich fishing ground and land to dry the fish somewhere out there, and it wasn’t impossibly far away.
If that land was “India” (or China, Japan, or other Asian islands), the world had to be much smaller than Eratosthenes’s measurement. But either his imagination totally failed to consider that there might be _other_ continents out there, or he realized that he’d better not mention that possibility if he wanted to get funds to find a route to “India”.
The real goal was the “Spice Islands” (now called Indonesia), which Europeans in Columbus’s era only vaguely knew were somewhere near the legendary land of India. So his plan was, first he sailed to India, then he looked for islands where exotic spices grew. Even plain pepper came to Europe over a very long route and through many middlemen, so it was priced out of the reach of commoners. Being able to haul spices directly home by the shipload would have meant huge wealth. Silk from China would add to the profits. (I don’t think they knew about tea or rubber yet). OTOH, if you had to sail around an unknown continent that stretched from the Arctic ice packs to much further south than the Portuguese had yet reached in Africa (also in search of a route to the Spice Islands), the profits might only be moderate, and no one was going to pay Columbus for that.
That is a sign of winning…when abortion lobbyists can’t cobble together an argument in support of their position and are angry that pro-life supporters can. Of course this also explains their violence against pro-life supporters and facilities.
That girl would be hilarious if it were not probable that she’ll go postal some day. She is the kind of woman our mothers warned us to avoid and a reason never to hire a Yale, or even Ivy League, graduate. The risk of ending up with a deranged employee incapable of rational thought is just too great.
Or be appointed to the federal bench by a future Dem admin.
Before you laugh at that thought, do a search for some of the recent Senate judicial confirmation session videos. They are outright scary.
I have to say I am well-past tired of hearing these liars call abortion “reproductive rights”. They are arguing to ABORT reproduction. They are arguing for anti-reproductive “rights”.
These dirtbags should not be allowed to call themselves pro-choice or say “reproductive rights” (unless they are referring to seeing pregnancies to term) or say “women’s health” when they mean “girls’ convenience”.
I am not as polite and courteous as the Yale pro-lifers. Pro-abortions ghouls are just that. They really are the darkest side of plain, old “penis envy”.
“Abortion” is to “reproductive rights” as “genocide” is to “human rights.”
The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate,” she wrote.
Well, bless your heart, dearie.
In otherwords, “if you don’t agree with me, you should be muzzled.”
Yep, it’s the same old Leftist song.
Their ideas fail in the real world, so they must muzzle others to keep from losing. It’s why the Leftists are increasingly intolerant of free speech — they can’t compete in that arena.
Romans 12:20-21 — Therefore: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink. For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.”
Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Two thousand year-old good advice and still good today.
This all goes to show that an education at Yale or some other expensive, famous university is fundamentally a waste of time and money, unless, perhaps, you are in a STEM discipline. The liberal arts in America have committed institutional suicide.
Looking at the complainer’s name, maybe there are some devoutly Presbyterian or Roman Catholic Korean immigrant parents in the background, wringing their hands over how all they put in to give their children a better life, all the scrimping and saving to provide for a good education, all the high hopes thought fulfilled on the arrival of an acceptance letter from Yale….all gone down the drain to see a promising daughter turned into a screaming “woke” fanatic.
The left refuses to consider the possibility that its opponents have a point of view that warrants debate
I don’t think so. The left knows that they will lose the debate if it is had.
Most leftists learn their arguments by rote (many learn them phonetically!) and cannot really think or reason about the claims they are mouthing.
They are much more often mouthing slogans — loudly — than any claims whatsoever.
Their totem words.
It’s nice to know that a future barista can write. She must gotten an A in English in high school. FJB
Why how dare they be willing to discuss facts, reason and logic while the bum ditch obsessed to screech, whine and demean? How DARE those mean, nasty conservatives put facts into her face when she only had her propaganda, polemics and factitious nonsense?! /sarc
My, Oh my, when leftist harridans are confronted with facts how they shriek and whinge with emotional crap over logical arguments….
The Republican abolitionists were also polite.
That said, demos-cracy is aborted in privacy, which is unlike the challenges posed by slavery and diversity. We live in progressive liberal times.
She’s probably the fun one at parties.
The barbarians hate civility
She is so triggered by these microaggresions, then says “that was manned by members…”.
by these microaggresions
Should be femtoaggressions.