Aqarius

For a good reason, quite a number of these are wrong.

“I don’t approve of political jokes; I’ve seen too many in office.”

Oh, it’s not the concern that’s funny, if they had that selfawareness it would be admirable. Instead, you have people pat themselves on the back for how aware they are every time they encounter a validating piece of propaganda they, of course, fall for. Big “I know a messiah when I see one, I’ve followed quite a few!” energy.

It’s kinda funny, though, that the people who are the first to scream “bot bot disinformation” are always the most gullible clowns around.

I’d sooner guess “ban evader”.

I believe “gnosticism” is the term, though I’ve heard them also called “dualistic” heresies.

Welcome to post-structuralism, enjoy the ennui. And the cognac.

I meant that the money donated isn’t that much, compared to the existing endowment. I think it was Adam Tooze’s argument, that IIRC Columbia could basically afford to lose most if not all donation streams and just fund itself from the stock market. And his interpretation as to why they reacted so violently is either fully ideological on behalf of the admin, or because Colombia is actually underperforming as asset management, a panicking reasserting of who runs the place, which is in a way also ideological.

It’s not unaware. It’s a policy that allows protest as an abstract idea, as long as nobody actually ever does it. It’s reminiscent of Zizeks visiting grandma joke.

From what I understand it’s not even that much money. The logic seems to be that the idea of democratic money management must be stomped out regardless of the cause it’s advocated for.