Happy heuristic for the holidays [Polarity Shift #1]

Share Button

A good heuristic for deciding how much to trust a claim about some group of humans is to exchange the groups (say with a find:replace command in word) with other groups and see if the change would result in a large swing in public perception. A large change in the perception based on which group is attributed the traits strongly suggests that great caution should be implemented in accepting the claim. As white males are typically the most egregiously attacked group, they are a good choice for replacing another group in any essay which is fawning and/or flattering. To most people the new essay instantly sounds like the work of an evil white supremacist, where the original was merely a positive expression of ethnic, female, or degenerate pride. For any essay that is hostile to the group under discussion, most of which target white males, it is useful to switch to women, Jews, or blacks. Or better yet, make the switch to black, Jewish lesbians to maximize the absurdity. Suddenly, a noble essay meant to combat institutionalized racism, sexism, and anti-semitism becomes a hateful piece of propaganda for white supremacy. If you could expect a polarity shifted essay to be widely and loudly denounced as X-ist, while the original is a triumph for social justice, chances are quite good that you have a big, steaming pile of bullshit on your hands.

Really, to save ourselves time in producing pro-white male, anti-everyone else propaganda, we should just take essays by leftists and use the find:replace function in word. The amount of lolz-worthy propaganda that could be generated in this way is nearly limitless and requires almost no effort since you don’t have to bother writing anything yourself. The triggered/troll’s effort ratio in this process is about as good as you could expect to get in any serious trolling activity. The curve is steep and has a limit of infinity. Perhaps this type of artistic re-imagining of left-wing propaganda will become a semi-regular staple of the blog. I will always be upfront about polarity shifting. However, I could imagine an enterprising troll using such material secretively in order to get leftists to spend huge amounts of effort inadvertently denouncing and debunking their own bullshit. It is win-win on so many levels and is so easy even a child could do it. Propaganda for the common shitlord.

So let’s begin this process with a recently released article by the Washington post titled “Women really are better doctors, study suggests.” Which I will rename “White men really are better doctors, study suggests”

If female doctors were able to do as well as their white male counterparts when treating elderly patients in the hospital, they could save 32,000 lives a year, according to a study of 1.5 million hospital visits.

A month after patients were hospitalized, there was a small but significant difference in the likelihood that they were still alive or had to be readmitted to the hospital depending on the gender of the doctor who cared for them, according to the study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Although the analysis can’t prove the gender of the physician was the determining factor, the researchers made multiple efforts to rule out other explanations.

“If we had a treatment that lowered mortality by 0.4 percentage points or half a percentage point, that is a treatment we would use widely. We would think of that as a clinically important treatment we want to use for our patients,” said Ashish Jha, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. The estimate that 32,000 patients’ lives could be saved in the Medicare population alone is on par with the number of deaths from vehicle crashes each year.

For years, studies have suggested that women and white men practice medicine differently. white men are more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines and counsel patients on preventive care. They are more communicative than women. But whether those differences have a meaningful impact on patients’ well-being has been unclear.

The new study, based on an analysis of four years of Medicare data, found that patients treated by a white male doctor had a little less than half of a percentage point difference in the likelihood they would die within a month of their hospitalization. There was a similar drop in patients having to go back to the hospital over that month. Those are not large differences, but Jha pointed out that major health policies aimed at improving mortality in hospitals and increasing patient safety had resulted in a similar drop in mortality over a decade.

To try to rule out other possible explanations for the difference — such as healthier patients’s preference for white male doctors — the researchers did an analysis where they looked solely at hospitalists, doctors who see patients who are admitted to hospitals and who are typically not chosen by patients. They also made sure patients had similar characteristics in the two groups. They compared doctors within hospitals, to avoid measuring a difference that could be accounted for by comparing a white man who worked at a rural community hospital with a woman who worked at an urban trauma center.

Vineet Arora, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, praised the research but was cautious to read too much into the main result, pointing out that it was important to remember the effect might stem from multiple factors.

“It could be something the doctor is doing. It could be something about how the patient is reacting to the doctor,” Arora said. “It’s really hard to say. It’s probably multi-factorial.”

What the study drove home for Arora, who works as a hospitalist, is that white men are certainly not worse doctors than women — and they should be compensated equitably. A study published earlier this year found a $20,000 pay gap between female and white male doctors after controlling for other factors, such as age, specialty and faculty rank, that might influence compensation.

She noted that white male doctors, who are often being hired in their horniest years, may face a subtle form of discrimination, in the worry that they will be less committed or that they will not work as hard when they have poon to chase.

“Having a white male physician is an asset,” Arora said.

William Weeks, a professor of psychiatry at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, said that the researchers had done a good job of trying to control for other factors that might influence the outcome. He noted that one caveat is that hospital care is usually done by a team. That fact was underscored by the method the researchers used to identify the doctor who led the care for patients in the study. To identify the gender of the physician, they looked for the doctor responsible for the biggest chunk of billing for hospital services — which was, on average, about half. That means that almost half of the care was provided by others.

Could an editorial written as the above is have been published in the Washington post? Could a research paper with these conclusions have been published in a “respectable” peer-reviewed journal? Absolutely not. The outrage would have been deafening and the authors would very likely lose their jobs or even be assaulted. The opposite finding would have never been published no matter how convincing the evidence. The only conclusion allowed was, is and will be that women are better doctors, and this institutional bias all but guaranteed that we were going to get some bunk study like this released to uncritical fanfare in the media. Polarity shifting this leftist propaganda makes it very salient that we are almost certainly dealing with bullshit here.

Forgetting for a second that an effect size of a half of a percentage point is trivial (it took almost 2 million data points to find this), and that social scientists have basically no credibility when it comes to their statistical practices, lets give these authors the benefit of the doubt and say they found a real effect here. After all, the idea of women being more nurturing does fit with traditional stereotypes and I could conceivably see how that might contribute to slightly extending the life of someone knocking on death’s door.

The problem with using this finding to conclude that women are better doctors is graduating female doctors opt out of their profession at much higher rates than men. This ends up removing roughly 30% of the worst female doctors from circulation and thus prevents them from being factored into the study. This should have a substantial impact on their overall average in studies such as this, and I am honestly surprised they didn’t get a larger effect than they did because of it. Of course, I AM assuming that it is disproportionately the worst doctors who opt-out of practice (there is no data on this), but honestly it is a reasonable assumption. People who are good at something tend to stick with it more. In addition, it doesn’t factor in that male doctors are working on average 5 more hours per week than their female counterparts. Ya, maybe he isn’t as cuddly with his patients, but he is likely seeing more patients per week which translates to providing substantially more care overall. You can quibble over this, but I would argue this increase in quantity of service is more important than a doubtful .5% change in mortality in the terminally ill. Leftists are very eager to latch onto any trivial finding to make a specious argument about how great their favored group is, but it is a huge red flag and very typically misses the larger picture. A picture that is already heavily skewed by decades of feminist infiltration into academia, but nonetheless still paints another picture than the established narrative. And that is assuming the finding itself wasn’t complete nonsense to start with.

The excerpt below from my book Smart and Sexy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences Between the Sexes provides a more extensive discussion of this. Citations for this section are at the end of the post.

The skilled female labor with the most extreme pattern of opting out is masters of business administration graduates from elite schools. Only 35% of the best, most qualified women who get educated from the highest ranked schools are actually participating in the work force; they are 30 percent more likely to opt out than their peers who went to less selective schools. Though even for those women at less selective schools, it must be noted that a 35% opt-out rate is still very high. Depending on the vocation and education level, the rate of expensively educated women opting out ranges from 20-40% but for most careers the female opt-out rate clusters around 30%. Women with children work even less than this with a range of 40-60% opting out over all professions with most professions having around a 50% opt-out rate.i The female drop out rate is partially due to new mothers deciding not to work to raise children, and it is also partially due to significantly greater earnings by husbands making their income relatively insignificant by comparison.

Perhaps the most important example of female opt-out being problematic is in medical training. Training medical doctors is hugely expensive and they receive the highest degree of taxpayer subsidization. Some of the costs are born by the degree seeker, but the majority of the cost is paid for by the state through taxes on the general population and ranges into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per doctor. The general population consents to this subsidization because they realize that they will need medical doctors to treat them when they become ill. However, prioritizing women in these careers is a poor investment for the tax payer even when they have the cognitive ability to meet the demands of the profession.

Work-time preference differences between genders strongly imply that training men is generally a better investment for society than women at the same level of ability. Especially considering 4 out of 10 female doctors are working less than full time and some of those do not practice at all.233, i Even full time female doctors work on average about 4.5 hours less a week than men. A man who works 50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, for 40 years would work a total of 100,000 hours. A woman who worked 35 hours a week for the same time frame would only work 70,000 hours. This rough calculation is quite generous in assuming that women working part-time only work 5 hours less than the standard work week and that they do not switch out of their trained profession at an early point for the duration of their working life. However, it is known in practice that many women end up switching out of the profession they were expensively trained in long before they retire.233, 236, ii, iii

These sorts of lifestyle choices are fine when the costs are born by the women who make them, but they are unacceptable when the costs are largely paid by society via wasting tax money on training that goes unused and in terms of shortages of access to medical care due to too few trained doctors practicing. The problem only promises to get worse because of the push to get gender parity in medicine. As of 2010, 30% of practicing doctors were female but almost 50% of new medical school graduates were female. It is estimated that if the trend of female opt-out continues, and there is no reason to think it won’t, there will be up to a 150,000 shortage of doctors in the near future. General practice and pediatrics will most acutely feel the problem since these are the fields women gravitate towards.236 The public will have difficulty gaining access to medical care and costs will rise substantially because of the push of women into medicine.

In addition to a preference for less work hours and a tendency to opt out entirely, working women also call in sick or are otherwise absent at about twice the rate of men.iv For sick leave specifically, women are absent about 50% more often for self-diagnosed sickness and 34% more often for medically certified sick leave.v Some, but not all, of this increased absenteeism can be explained by a greater likelihood for mothers rather than fathers to stay home with sick children. The rest may be due to legitimate increased susceptibility to illness (for example, menstrual pain and hysteria), a degree of semi-hypochondria, or a general lack of tenacity in the face of women’s dislike of working. The later would be consistent with normal female work preferences. There is also some evidence for increased hypochondria; though women more often report ill health than men, it is not reflected by higher mortality rates. Reported ill health is much better correlated with mortality in men.vi Whatever the reasons for these trends, the consequence is that by any measure, women as a population make for less productive and reliable employees than men even when they have similar levels of intellectual ability.

The costs shouldered by businesses forced to hire women to meet diversity quotas is enormous. Though employee turnover has been increasing in recent years for all demographics, the above data makes it clear that women lead the pack. It is estimated that employee turnover will approach 65% in the near future. The median cost of employee turnover is 20% of the employee’s annual salary for positions that pay under 75 thousand dollars annually, but there is a large range of costs and the cost increases drastically for specialized positions that require significant education. Replacing highly paid, specialized positions can cost up to 213% of the lost employee’s annual salary.vii, viii

Studies and articles which address the problem of female opt-out, because of the feminist tendencies of the authors, generally advocate costly female-friendly policies.242, 243, ix In other words, they advocate lower standards for women relative to men and toleration of a greater degree of absenteeism for women. Essentially this means that feminists want the costs and opportunity costs of women’s decisions to be externalized to employers and fellow employees who have to pick up the slack for absent or disengaging women, and vicariously to society who have to deal with less available service agents. The obvious and easiest solution is to simply not have as many women in these positions or restrict them to positions which can tolerate less devotion. This is exactly what our ancestors sensibly did. A company would be better off not having female oriented policies to discourage women from working there and thus maintain a more reliable work force.

i Sibert, K. S. (2011). Don’t quit this day job. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ii Belkin, L. (2003) The Opt-Out Revolution. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/26WOMEN.html

iii Kuczynski, A (2002) “They Conquered, They Left.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/style/they-conquered-they-left.html

iv Tahmincioglu, E. (2007) Female Absenteeism is not just about child care. NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21547885/ns/business-careers/t/female-absenteeism-not-just-about-child-care/

v Laaksonen, M., Martikainen, P., Rahkonen, O., Lahelma, E. (2007) Explanations for gender differences in sickness absence: evidence from middle-aged municipal employees from Finland. Occup Environ Med. 65(5):325-30. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.033910.

vi Young, H., Grundy, E., O’Reilly, D., Boyle, P. (2010) Self-rated health and mortality in the UK: results from the first comparative analysis of the England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland Longitudinal Studies. Popul Trends. 2010 Spring;(139):11-36. doi: 10.1057/pt.2010.3.

vii Boushey, H., Glynn, S. J. (2012) There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American Progress.

viii Appelbaum, E., Milkman, R. (2006) “Achieving a Work­able Balance: New Jersey Employers’ Experiences Managing Employee Leaves and Turnover” Center for Women and Work. Rutgers.

ix Herry, J. L., Wolframz, C. (2009) Work Environment and \Opt-Out” Rates at Motherhood Across High-Education Career Paths. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 14717

i Hersch, J. (2013) Opting Out among Women with Elite Education. Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 13-05. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2221482

Share Button

PCU

Share Button

The Hestia Society has recently created an “official” forum for neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment. One of the first forum posts asked what movies or TV shows are out there which aren’t completely drenched with progressive nonsense. As I and others have detailed, many forms of entertainment and writing are little more than progressive propaganda including movies like 12 angry men, TV shows such as the walking dead, video games like mass effect, high school reading assignments, and even standardized tests with reading and writing portions. Also worth considering is that the tests themselves are designed to give skewed results with respect to comparing genders; which can then be used as infallible “science” in other propaganda. Convenient that. Please note that I think the tests still work, just not nearly as well as they could when it comes to specifically comparing average scores between genders.

Anyway, I spent some time thinking about this and gave a few answers in a comment and moved on (which you can see in the second link in this post). However, I had that on the back of my mind while I started on the next thing. Almost immediately after that comment I decided to do some in-depth digging to see what exactly was going on at Mizzou with all these protests in greater detail. Previously I had just glanced at a few articles. I find these sorts of outrage-porn events in the news-cycle depressing and tend to skip over many of them for the sake of my sanity at least until it grows large enough to force me deal with the despair and to look deeper. Events include hunger strikes by a student from a family worth 20 million but who is nonetheless O so oppressed (affirmative action or cronyism?), heads of the University resigning, and “professors” being hit with assault charges. (Also Mizzou isn’t the only University undergoing craziness.) Students are afraid to disagree with the protests because the university is shutting down freedom of speech (not to mention fear of retaliation from extremely crazy leftists),

The University of Missouri police department sent an email urging students to report offensive or hurtful speech – not because it is illegal – but so the Office of Student Conduct could take disciplinary action against these students.

Several of us are afraid to disagree with other students, who in turn may report us to the authorities so we can be “dealt with.” Many students have told me they are also afraid to speak out against the protest narrative, afraid they will be called “racist” and become campus pariahs.

Struggle sessions are real friends. This whole thing is just completely Kafkaesque. I mean the whole scene there just seems to be going completely nuts beyond all reason. People are getting hysterical if the reports are to be believed.  And most people actually seem to be against the radical leftists this time; a hopeful sign I suppose.

There were supposedly two big triggers, although I have to admit it is convoluted and different articles say different things. In one that I have seen, some black guy got mad because allegedly someone yelled “nigger” at him while driving by in a truck. I actually sympathize with him. I really do. I once had some asshole in a truck pass as fast and as close as he could while I was riding a bike and the passenger screamed out his window right as they passed me. I nearly had a heart attack. That was, after all, extremely dangerous for me if I had fallen or he had hit me. As in real danger, unlike someone yelling nigger but doing nothing else otherwise… He then got stopped ahead at a light, though, and I broke his mirror off as I myself ran the light and went on a trail next to the road in some woods where they couldn’t follow in the truck and wouldn’t keep up without a bike of their own. It was a nice revenge, and I don’t feel bad about it. What I am trying to say here is that I know what it is like to be the recipient of grief from an obnoxious asshole in a truck and can even understand why this guy would be mad. However, I can tell the difference between a singular asshole in a truck who needs an ass-kicking (or just ignoring) from a society wide problem of discrimination warranting protests, hunger strikes, and university president resignations. [People do protest for more bike friendly regulations etc, and I have never taken part in such a demonstration]

The other important incident is something I would expect from the onion. Apparently an unknown person went into a unisex bathroom at one of the dorms, shat on the floor, smeared shit all over the walls and door handle, then as a cherry on top (poorly) drew a swastika with their own poop:

Mizzou shit swastika cropped

I am not going to lie. When I first read about this, I laughed. I don’t mean a mild chuckle either, I mean a deep gut laugh that carried on for some minutes. I find this hilarious. Not so much that poop was spread along the walls (which is pretty immature), but the fact that thousands of people have completely gone ape-shit (chimped-out?) over poop on the walls. Like, how is this the reality we live in? How is it people don’t just step back and think “we are talking about poop on the walls, maybe we shouldn’t take this or ourselves so seriously?”

Now, this could have been a false flag where some deranged SJW carries out crimes in an effort to stir up a hornet’s nest of other SJWS, like with the “black church burnings” also happening in Missouri and which probably has contributed to the current growing craziness. Or the fake “confirmed KKK presence” also part of the absurd events going on at Mizzou. As detailed in the previous church burning link, it turns out that a black man was pretending to be a racist white burning churches because he just wants to stir up shit I guess (that is, he wanted to generally increase racial animosity). Of course, I doubt there was any reflection to strike the burnings off the list of white “crimes” after the truth was revealed. That doesn’t fit the desired narrative after all.

As far as the poop swastika goes, this is what I believe happened assuming it wasn’t a false flag. Someone, probably male between the ages of 18 and 21, got drunk and/or high, came back to the dorms late and had to take a shit. He was feeling mad or mischievous or antisocial or something and decided to make a big mess. He then proceeded to shit on the floor. Or perhaps he was so messed up he just shit on the floor for drunk reasons with no particular purpose [it happens…] then decided “I went that far, might as well roll with it. It gives me some ‘good’ ideas….” He then proceeded to spread the shit everywhere and thought it would be funny to make a swastika while he was at it. The only purpose behind his actions were to make people mad and disgust them by breaking taboos so why not? (I seriously, seriously doubt a real Nazi would use shit as his artistic medium) He was after entertainment rather than interested in making a point, as most trolls are. Well, I doubt he expected his shit trolling to escalate into world wide media coverage. Who would? Somewhere there is a poop brigader going “oh shit, my shit really caused a shit storm.” No troll could possibly imagine their extremely intoxicated decision to draw a poop swastika would result in weeks of protests, a hunger strike, complete stifling of free speech, and high ranking university officials resigning. Who would expect that level of over-reaction to some poop spread on the walls of a dorm? As cynical as I am about leftists and how crazy they are, even I wouldn’t have guessed that.

So anyway, these two things plus other alleged grievances led to a series of protests to end “racism,” as was already linked to earlier. In one case a professor, who happens to be an extremely homely white woman, tried to dismiss several journalists from the protest and physically engaged one guy recording video with his phone. Look at the the study topics and publications of this “professor” in the previously linked article:

A closer look at her Mizzou faculty page reveals much.

Her current subjects of reseach include: “50 Shades of Grey readers, the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga, masculinity and male fans, messages about class and food in reality television programming, and messages about work in children’s television programs.”

Selected publications: “Click, M. A., Lee, H., & Holladay, H. (2013). Making monsters: Lady Gaga, fan identification, and social media. Popular Music & Society, 6(3), 360-379.

Click, M. A., Aubrey, J. S., and Behm-Morawitz, E. (Eds.). (2010). Bitten by Twilight: Youth culture, media, and the vampire franchise. New York: Peter Lang.”

Accolades: “Outstanding Mentor” (2011) and as “Graduate Advisor of the Year” (2013).

How do people like this, doing such asinine and pointless “research,” manage to stay employed? On the taxpayers dime no less (she apparently is paid 4,700 a month). She’s a completely worthless parasite and I wish we could all get a refund on subsidizing higher education. This reminds me of how the taxpayers have spent millions of dollars studying why lesbians are fat. I could have answered that for free.

Its taken awhile to get to the point but the article about the professor and the journalists is what caused me to remember a specific movie that, if not really reactionary, isn’t supportive of SJWs and is what gave me the title of this post. You see, when the professor and student protesters were trying to evict the student journalists they came up with a chant:

“Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go.”

This real-life chant is extremely similar to one used by ultra-feminazis in the 1994 movie PCU. Toward the end of the movie, a group of militant “womenists” chant “This penis party has to go, Hey, hey. Ho, ho.” in protest to a large party being thrown by the protagonists. Talk about synchronicity. I just happened to have non-PC movies on the back of my mind when I read this article thanks to the neoreactionary forum post and immediately remembered that scene in PCU when the eerily similar chant at Mizzou was described.

The gist of the story is that a recent high school graduate (Tom) is going to various universities he was accepted to in order to decide which one he was going to attend. The weekend the movie takes place during is centered at Port Chester University (PCU) in Connecticut. In other words, it is a pun which can be doubly interpreted as Politically Correct University. I think it is also loosely based on a real school in Connecticut called Porter and Chester, though I have no reason to think that school is exceptionally politically correct. The name just happened to be convenient and that is probably the end of the reference. Tom ends up getting assigned someone to show him around who is essentially a nihilistic party animal (Droz) as a result of a practical joke on the later by one of Droz’s friends. Droz reluctantly does show him around after seeing there was no shirking the duty. Tom then proceeds to learn about all the many different radical, prig prog, leftist, student organizations which regularly protest and cause problems on campus. Blacks, gays, militant lesbian feminists, “the causeheads” which have a new cause every week, the grateful dead inspired mega-stoners etc, as well as people pursuing absolutely worthless degrees. Protests in the movie are obnoxious and disturb any sane people within proximity, not unlike real protesters at real universities today. The last group isn’t technically a protest group though; they just get mad that their “work” was deleted thanks to some messing with electricity to the computers by one of the protagonists. And not to leave conservatives out, the movie also has a very cloistered group of white republican Frat guys led by David Spade who spend most of their time hiding (literally) from radical leftists. Ya, really.

This movie definitely isn’t reactionary. If there is a moral to the story it is probably nihilism and hedonism (or maybe just be easy-going and have fun). However, I kind of think “a moral of the story” is a little too much to attribute and expect from a story along the lines of van wilder. It is first and foremost a comedy with a large number of one liners meant to make you laugh, and at that it succeeds masterfully. I feel it should be appealing to reactionaries simply because, if not reactionary itself, it spends the vast majority of its time making fun of SJWs (before the term was even coined). 90% of the time, SJWs are the butt of the joke. This simple fact is quite the breath of fresh air compared to the typically progressivism-oriented fair produced by the media. In that sense it is reactionary from the perspective of the middle, if you want to call anti-moralizing hedonists the middle. Let’s face it, we reactionaries moralize quite a bit and so do SJWs but from essentially diametrically opposed sets of morals. “Middle ground” might be an appropriate, if imperfect, description. I laughed quite a bit watching this movie which, combined with them actually targeting SJWs for once, allows me to forgive their essentially hedonistic message.

I first watched this movie when I was in high school and thought it was very funny. The most memorable moment (from my high school days perspective) being an interaction between a stoner and an old lady which I won’t ruin for you; you will have to watch the movie to find out what I am referring to.  I remember once in college I told many people about it and convinced a group to sit down and watch it. They liked it, but they seemed to think I over-hyped it. One friend (one of two who knows me in person and knows I write this blog, and will be forwarded a link to this post) even said that it was very dated or that it didn’t age well. We watched the movie together in 2006 or so and SJWs weren’t quite our primary concern. Though radical leftism was surely going on, we weren’t as interested or as informed about it as we are now. Needless to say, we have both moved pretty far to the right since we watched this back then…. I took the criticism in stride at the time, but with hindsight from the events from 2010 to 2015 I would say the movie is better suited to the current cultural climate now than it was then, or even probably when it was first released in 1994. In many respects, the satire in the movie has become essentially a reality today; the chanted lines in the movie and in Missouri for example. The leftists of reality today are very like the satirical leftists in PCU from 1994. The convergence of satire and reality is what give the comedic elements their punch. The pilloried leftists in the movie are much like how I would expect the leftists at Mizzou today to act and the movie leftists believe what the Mizzou leftists of today believe. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t do too well when it was first released; it was too prescient and ahead of its time I guess.

Now I want to go ahead and discuss specific quotes and events in the movie, but I don’t want to spoil it for you if you haven’t seen it already. If you go to duckduckgo.com, a search engine which values privacy and doesn’t block streaming websites, and search “PCU 1994 stream” you may be able to watch the movie for free at the first link. I don’t know, though, because I never tried that.

[spoilers follow after the add, stop reading here if you would like to watch this movie prior to learning specific details about the jokes in it or keep going if you don’t care]

The movie starts with Tom going into the frat house dubbed “The Pit.” There is no one there to greet him so he just walks in and observes some pictures on the wall. In the frames from 1950s up to 1967 it shows in each a collection of pictures of respectable looking white men in suits. Then there is a change and in the 1969 image it is just one picture with a bunch of stereotypical dirty hippies; which are also now co-ed. You find out later that frats were banned at the University in 1967, which is what causes the change. It should be noted that banning frats (i.e., congregations of white males) seems to be a real goal today. As Tom moves through the pictures up until the contemporary year, they degenerate and get more shabby until the year prior to the setting of the movie (1993) where it is just a polaroid thumb-tacked to the wall. A not too subtle symbolism of advancing degeneracy. Overall, “the pit” is a very nice old building that is horrendously maintained and disrespected. Its a mess, people rollerblade inside, and grafiti is all over the walls in some rooms.

One of the earliest gags is about how people today often major in quite useless degrees. One of the members of “the pit” is nicknamed “Pigman” and they approach him as he is watching TV and “working” on his senior thesis. Droz explains Pigman’s thesis to Tom. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine/Hackmen theory which postulates that no matter what time of the day or night or which day of the week; there is always at least one Michael Caine or Gene Hackmen movie playing. Droz responds to Tom’s incredulity with the following line “That’s the beauty of college these days, you can major in Gameboy if you know how to bullshit.” Funny to be sure, but also disturbing when you compare it to the work of the actual professor mentioned above whose “research” is on twilight, 50 shades of grey, and lady gaga…. You can’t make this stuff up. This satire is barely satire. Scratch that, a Caine/Hackmen theory is actually more respectable than research on lady gaga and 50 shades of grey by a fair margin.

Towards the end of the movie the topic of useless majors is revisited. A series of people had their theses deleted as a result of an event earlier in the movie, and Droz peddles in providing completed theses to lazy students. To calm nerves he offers to help these people out by providing them ready-made work at no charge. One student wants a thesis for Sanskrit; to which Droz replies awestruck “Sanskrit? You’re majoring in a 5000 year old dead language?” He then gives him a thesis on latin saying that is the best he could do. The next student comes to him and tells Droz that he is majoring in Phys. Ed.  Droz replies “Phys. Ed.? You, out of my room. Seriously get out.” In 2015, we are no longer surprised to read about or meet people getting worthless degrees and doing worthless research since worthless degrees have only gotten more popular over time.

One of my favorite scenes occurs shortly after the description of the Caine/Hackman thesis. Droz finally agrees to really show Tom the campus and he proceeds to describe the culture of political correctness that we are all by now familiar with:

[Droz] “Here’s the deal, you have to get all of that 50s cornball shit out of your head. Its a whole new ballgame on campus these days and they call it PC.”

[Tom] “PC?”

[Droz] “Politically correct and its not just politics, its everything. Its what you eat, its what you wear, and its what you say. If you don’t watch yourself you can get in a boatload of trouble.

[as the conversation goes on, they walk out of the frat house and past a bunch of protesters, agitators, prig progs and advocates who are making noise]

[Droz] “For example, see these girls?”

[Tom] “Ya”

[Girl 1] “We have rights too”

[Girl 2] “choose to choose now”

[Droz] “No you don’t, those are women, call them girls and they’ll pop your face.”

[Tom and Droz continue walking past a series of other activists]

[Male 1] “Save the whales!”

[Male 2] “Gays in the military now!”

[Male 3] “Free Nelson Mandela!”

Notice how the middle one is now a reality…. All of these activists so far are white people for the most part. I would say that is pretty accurate; with the exception of identity politics most of the random SJW causes without reference to a specific human group are majority white. Sad really. At this point Tom and Droz spot a group of ultra-feminazi butch dykes.

[Tom and Droz stop and look ahead, brief pause]

[Tom] “What? Are those women?”

[Droz] “Those aren’t women Tom, they’re womenists”

[shows a bunch of short-haired butch dykes in camo all  looking angry; there is one attractive one]

[Dreadlocked butch dyke to attractive chic] “Hey Sam, isn’t that the guy you used to, uh…?”

[Sam] “Ya”

[Third plain-looking dyke] “You went out with a WHITE MALE!?” [surprised unbelief; all three are white women…]

[Sam] “What?! I was a freshman.”

[Dread Dyke] “Fresh person please.

[Droz attempts to approach Sam]

[Dread Dyke] “He’s coming over here, [blows a rape whistle] Sister’s form a wall!”

[A line of butch dykes form a wall between Sam and Droz.]

[Droz] “Hello, is Sam in there?”

[Dread Dyke] “In there? whats that supposed to mean?”

[Plain Dyke] “Ya, cock man oppressor!”

[Droz] “Why thank you. Can you just tell her that Mr. pokey stopped by”

[blank stares; Tom and Droz leave]

[Dread Dyke] “What the hell does that mean; Mr. pokey?”

[Plain Dyke] “I think he meant his [hmphf] phallus” [erects index fingers]

[Dread Dyke angrily turns to Sam] “You participated in a phallus naming?”

[Sam] “No, no i have no idea”

[Dread Dyke] “You stay away from him Sam, he’s an animal.”

I find this depiction of feminists gratifying. Saying that angry feminists aren’t women is true enough. It also captures the impotent rage well, as well as their stupidity. I also enjoyed Droz’s use of a cocky-funny response and how he held frame during this massive shit test. There are also stories of White! women who seem to hate white men and won’t date them. It is a small group; but they are invariably radical leftists which is what gives them that hate of their own race. They buy, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda that whites are evil oppressors and seek their own destruction. Though they probably did exist in 1994; I can only assume they are more common now. Or else they just get a lot more notoriety and news coverage. Either way, this attitude is perceived to be real among some small groups of radical leftists.

[Tom and Droz continue walking]

[Tom] “This place is kind of insane.”

[Droz] “Wait till you meet the causeheads.”

[Tom and Draz approach a university building. Hippi-looking people have formed a circle holding hands outside the building. Other hippis are dancing weirdly in the circle. Several are dressed in cow costumes. A chic is in front of them with a megaphone leading a chant. You find out later her “name” is Moonbeam.]

[Moonbeam] “What don’t we eat?”

[Protesters] “Meat”

[Moonbeam] “Why don’t we eat it”

[Protesters] “It’s murder”

[repeat ad nauseum]

[Droz] “These, Tom, are your causeheads. They find a world threatening issue and stick with it… for about a week.”

[Tom and Droz approach another pitfiend; a resident of the pit]

[Pitfiend] “Last week it was the ozone layer but now its meat. They were making chili burgers and won’t let anyone in.”

At this point about 7 pitfiends sneak past the protesters by new-age dancing through the crowd. They enter the cafeteria and grab the hamburger and meatballs and other things. As a hippi plays guitar singing hippi music and Moonbeam explains how the life of a student (dying from starvation) is worth sacrificing for a cow or other animals, the pitfiends hurl several hundred pounds of raw meat at the protesters from an upper story window. How satisfying that would be to do in real life.

Shortly afterward, the pitfiends are running but Tom is the last to get out and the only one the causeheads see. A large ultra-leftist mob then chase, with seeming violent intent, one solitary guy. This witch hunt scenario is a continuing gag throughout the movie and true enough in a figurative sense to how actual leftist mobs behave. As Tom was escaping, he happens to run into the group which is most like that of the current most radical and obnoxious protesters. Though in the movie they weren’t portrayed as obnoxious as their real life counterparts with the exception of their opinions. In terms of loudness and physical intimidation real life is worse than fiction (see also, and this). I like to call this all-black group in the movie “the Quanza group.” When Tom runs into them, the leader is giving a monologue on the evils of whiteness. The Quanza leader is saying “And the walls are painted white, and the chalk is white, and the paper is white, and even the copy machine is painted white. This my friend is a white devil’s conspiracy.” This is so absurd that you can’t help but laugh. Unfortunately, it isn’t too far off from the paranoia of real life black activists. The concept of white privilege can be pretty much summed up by the previous statements. Everything, no matter how trivial, is interpreted in terms of white vs. black by many protesters and far left academics. Yet the things often focused on as “white privilege” are typically just as asinine in real life as they were in this satire.

After Tom manages to escape from all the rabid leftists, making their attempt at lynching fruitless, they proceed to plan B and en masse submit complaint forms against the pit. The complaint form is one of my favorite additions to the movie. I used it as the post image at the top, but here it is again below (open in a new tab to read it):

PCU complaint form correct

The reason there are lines through it is because the movie shows this as a close up as “Moonbeam” fills it out. I swear, that name makes me laugh every time. I had to merge several screenshots so you could see everything in one image. I find this very funny. Levels of insensitivity can be no less than “typical.” This suggests that no matter what anyone does everyone is persistently and consistently “insensitive.” Sounds a lot like “white privelege”  and other leftist complaints in real life to me. When it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as someone doing the right thing and everyone is guilty of sins against political correctness. The other options are funny too; levels of offendedness and suggested punishments including written apologies and sensitivity workshops.

At this point the president of the university shows up and has a conversation with “Moonbeam” about the pit and expresses she also would like to get rid of them. Rather than go over every situation in detail; I will just provide some choice dialogue from the university president throughout the film. Some of it is pretty quotable stuff because of its absurdity; at least in my opinion.

  • [Talking to Moonbeam] “Those pit offenders are single-handedly destroying sensitivity levels on campus.”
  • [Addressing the residents of the pit] “Need I remind you that this house already has enough complaints to qualify for a sensitivity awareness weekend? You passed out cigarettes for a smoke-a-thon on earth day. You installed speed bumps on the handicap ramps, and most recently poured 100 pounds of meat on a peaceful vegan protest.” [Beyond hedonism, the pit is a group of super trolls who willfully rustle the jimmies of anyone prigging out]
  • [Addressing a University board member at a upscale party] “Well I think bisexual Asian studies should have its own building, but the question is who goes? The math department or the hockey team?”
  • [Addressing board members again] “I am going to announce the changing of the mascot from the offensive Port Chester Indian to an endangered species. Gentlemen, meet our new mascot: the Port Chester whooping crane.”

The last two especially remind  me of problems in universities today. Creating whole departments dedicated to advancing degeneracy is certainly something modern universities engage in. Various “victims” studies programs is common and a complete waste of taxpayer money. Moreover; leftists do legitimately seem interested in prioritizing these worthless cronyism departments at the expense of real academics and even sports; the later of which at least more people can enjoy. The last quote reminds me very much of the recent controversy with the Washington Redskins. Prig prog bureaucrats recently revoked their trademark primarily because it was “offensive.

Well, this post is already almost 5000 words so I am going to finish with two last scenarios. There are certainly other scenes and jokes worth mentioning; but I will leave it to you to watch the movie and see what they are. I suppose I should also mention that George Clinton the “funk” musician makes an appearance at the end. I am not really a fan; so that could have been left out in my opinion. However, I don’t think it detracts too much from the movie overall. It’s just there. Clinton doesn’t express any opinions, he just sings a song.

In the end there was a depiction of the victim Olympics which I enjoyed. In the scene, all the various groups are in line waiting to get into the party being thrown by the pit. They are impatient so they start trying to use their “victim” status to cut in line. Not only is it funny seeing various groups try to out-victim one another, but it is also illuminating to see the real reasons such groups engage in this: A selfish desire to gain social and financial advantage without actually contributing anything. It starts with the Quanza leader:

[Quanza leader] “I’m a black man; there is no justice for me here in America. I should be at the front of the line.”

[Camera moves towards front of line]

[Gay dude] “Ya well, I’m gay and subject to ridicule and discrimination wherever I go.”

[Camera moves even closer to the front of the line]

[Dread dyke] “Women are oppressed throughout the world, give it a rest.”

And I will leave you with the pitfiend’s take on the whole of PC culture. Though not exactly deep, I think it really captures the zeitgeist of the modern left without going into any sort of detailed analysis. These lines come before the party actually starts and it is getting protested by the “womenists.” This is when they are chanting the quote which reminded me of this movie and is similar to the real chant at Mizzou.

[Womenists] “This penis party has to go. Hey, hey. Ho, ho.

[Droz] “You try to spread joy and the PC shock troops shut you down.”

[Pitfiend Girl] “God, don’t they want to have a good time at least once in their lives?”

[Droz] “That’s a damn good point. The majority of students today are so cravenly PC they wouldn’t know a good time if it was sitting on their faces.”

Share Button