If you haven’t heard already (because the drama queen was very public about his decision, so people would ostensibly realize what a loss he was to the school) associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Kansas Jacob Dorman has tendered his resignation, because he got his mangina chafed at the state’s decision to allow concealed carry on campus. Because, you see, Dorman believes his cowardice, inability to control his bladder, and utter disdain for human rights should trump others’ right to defend himself. Additionally, Dorman believes other professors are just like him – pusillanimous dick brains, who apparently don’t understand this nation’s history, despite having taught it for a decade, as he reminds us in his resignation letter – will leave institutions of higher learning in droves.
In practical terms, concealed carry has proven to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as suspects themselves.
It’s typical of a panty-shitting coward to start his claims with misleading information. He claims concealed carry has been a failure, which is a disingenuous assertion since most colleges and universities ban concealed carry on campus, and overall crime on college campuses, including those that allow concealed carry, is minuscule. In 2015 Texas became just the eighth state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Arkansas and Georgia in 2017 passed legislation to allow students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. And given the misinformation vomited forth by Bloomberg-funded anti-rights groups about school shootings was debunked in 2014, Dorman’s claims are mendacious at best.
But maybe Dorman was claiming that concealed carry does not deter violence writ large. Could that be?
But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that this is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state.
Yep, that’s what Dorman is claiming, and that makes him look like a biased, uninformed douche tool, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. In fact, there have not been any problems with campus concealed carry in states that allow it. But hey, Dorman, don’t let that stop your froth-flecked histrionics! They’re effective kabuki theater for anyone ignorant enough about the issue and determined enough to fall for your hysterical rhetoric.
Fact is, Dorman thinks very highly of himself. He’s obviously quite the social justice warrior, as a student in his 300-level history class who rated Dorman only average, and noted, “I liked the course but I wish we had covered more and that it wasn’t focused only on race,” and he thinks that jamming the university full of progtards like himself is a desirable goal.
Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.
Boy, for someone who is supposed to be teaching history, Dorman is certainly illiterate and ignorant of what the Second Amendment actually says. I’ve referred to Roy Copperud – an acknowledged language expert – who definitively analyzed the text of the Second Amendment, and who shredded Dorman’s spurious claims, in multiple blog posts.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
But maybe Dorman should take a grammar class before bloviating on the meaning of text he quite obviously does not comprehend, because this obviously illiterate fuck monkey is teaching impressionable students American history, when he has obvious issues even comprehending the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and that’s just no bueno. Probably a good thing he’s bidding the university a fond farewell.
And I won’t even address the incredibly tone-deaf, arrogant, supercilious claim that the “best trained professors” only come from progtard ranks where everyone is as ignorant as he is on the meaning of 27 little words, written in plain English!
Moving on, Dorman engages in some interesting projection when it comes to students carrying firearms. As a matter of fact, he essentially denigrates and demeans anyone in his class who may choose to carry a tool of self defense as someone apt to use their firearm in anger, someone untrained, and someone not in control of their temper. Further, he degrades adults who choose to exercise their rights as people intolerant of others views, when numerous events over the past few years have shown exactly the opposite to be true. Remember Yale? Remember Mizzou? Remember TrigglyPuff? Remember Berkeley?
Moreover, we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that an argument could easily be lethal. Guns in the classroom will have a chilling effect on free speech and hinder the university’s mission to facilitate dialogue across lines of division. That stifling of dialogue will hurt all students, including the ones with guns in their pockets.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you self-important, clue-deficient, bloviating, shit gurgler? The threat of being fired, expelled or otherwise sanctioned for expressing an opinion with which the leftist Snowflake brigade disagrees.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you narcissistic assbag? The open and public effort to hire only “progressives,” to teach at universities while working to shut out any professor whose views you find disagreeable.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you smug, insulated twat blister? Drowning out dissenting speech and threatening violence to silence speakers with whose views you may not agree!
Trained, responsible adults, who are known to have very low incidents of criminal activity carrying tools of self defense in your classrooms should be the least of your worries! But since you’re a quivering, flapping mangina, you’re solely focused on the presence of an “evil” tool which may or may not be present in your classroom (you’ll never know, asshat – much like you’ll never know if someone is illegally carrying a concealed firearm), rather than the environment in today’s colleges, which you help perpetuate, and which insulates students from dissenting views and allows you to publicly urinate on those with whom you disagree with impunity.
Kansas faces a very clear choice: does it want excellent universities with world class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?
Yes, Kansas does face a very clear choice. Does it want professors on campus who, like Dorman, are intent on casting aspersions on the very students whose views claims to want to protect, but who obviously only cares about those views with which he happens to agree? Does it want professors who can’t even comprehend plain English (or alternately, intentionally misinterpret it to fit their views)?
Please, Dorman, take your options to teach elsewhere! Go away, and take your gaggle of insipid, cunt-chafed snowflakes with you!
You are the problem. You and your howling, perpetually outraged, spineless ilk are what stifles free speech on today’s campuses.
The University of Kansas should consider itself lucky to be rid of you.
I gotta wonder why anyone would consider this news. Apparently, snowflake millennials are having trouble existing on their own, so they wind up quitting school and living in mom and dad’s basement, and NBC is right on top of that exclusive!
In 2015, one-third or about 24 million young adults, ranging from 18 to 34, lived with their parents, according to the report.
“Living in an independent household is expensive and the ability to do so hinges, in part, on young adults’ economic resources as well as the costs of rent and home-ownership,” the report stated.
While 81 percent of those who live at home are either working or going to school, one in four between 25 to 34 are “idle, meaning they are not in school and do not work” the report stated.
You know what I did while going to school full time at Johns Hopkins? I also worked full time in a retail store. I started at minimum wage, and worked my way up to assistant store manager. Eventually, I became a bartender and waitress. Tips were good. I worked every night, studied at work when I could, and picked up 10-12 hour shifts at the restaurant on the weekends. No, I didn’t get much sleep during those days, but I also didn’t expect to have a lavish lifestyle. I ate at work when I could. I lived with my significant other at the time, and our weekly food budget bought us basics – some frozen vegetables, some meat, milk, and cereal. I brought home leftovers when possible. My parents gave us a couple of old pieces of furniture. A mattress and box spring, which we placed on the floor, an old, rickety table for two with two chairs, an old ottoman which acted as a couch, and an old television set. I did my homework on an old word processor on a cardboard box that acted as a desk.
My dad co-signed for a used car. I had a car payment and insurance. I paid them. It wasn’t a great car. It was a practical one.
After I left college, I realized that I hadn’t learned skills applicable in the real world. I bartended for a while, but ultimately decided to enlist in the Army, where I learned a marketable skill and gained the experience I needed to eventually get a job in the private sector.
My son is in the Army Reserves. He gets a monthly paycheck as long as he goes to drill. He pays for his car and his insurance. Before joining his unit, he had what was called a job. He worked at Starbucks, and while I helped when I could, I was in dire economic straits myself thanks to the fiasco with hell tenants two years ago, so he did with what he had.
Yes, the job market is different, but you know what? Snowflakes need to learn to adjust and stop expecting that they will immediately get hired into a corner office with a six-figure salary. Yes, it’s a different work environment, and they need to figure out not only what they want to do, but what the market is offering.
Guess what, snowflake! That degree in gender studies isn’t going to translate into a well-paying job once you leave the cozy cocoon of academia.
That thesis you wrote in cishetero oppression of indigenous pygmies in the Seychelles isn’t going to get you very far in today’s job market.
You need ingenuity. You need flexibility. You need the ability to reason, not just blame the world for not handing you what you think you deserve.
Colleges and universities are definitely not preparing students for the real world. They’re giving class credit for “activism” (read: skipping school to protest perpetual grievances that underscore their impression that nothing is ever their fault, and that their specialness should be recognized and honored by all). They’re providing endless validation to whining harpies, who are interminably offended about the world not genuflecting before their inadequacies and legitimizing complaints about alleged “mistreatment” at the hands of oh-so-evil professors who had the unmitigated gall to demand class attendance for grades!
They’re pumping out witless, entitled, unprepared, whining ass cakes, who lack self awareness and are overflowing with supercilious, gratuitous arrogance, and who wonder why no one will hire them.
Maybe that’s a big part of the reason why millennials are having a rough time?
Or maybe they just like their parents basements.
A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a New Boston Post article by someone named Kyle Reyes – President and CEO of The Silent Partner Marketing – that explained his firm’s somewhat unorthodox hiring practices. You see, The Silent Partner Marketing is apparently a pretty cool place to work. They have a bar, they have a personal trainer, they allow dogs – YES DOGS!!!! – in the office, which should actually alleviate stress levels and increase productivity. (Yes, I speak from experience. We employed a wounded warrior at my old job, who had an adorable German Shepherd seeing eye pup, and who acted as our office therapy dog whenever he didn’t have his harness on.) So being a cool place to work, the company obviously gets a lot of interest from prospective employees, who find the benefits appealing.
So how does a company ensure they hire the best and brightest, whose personality fits the culture?
I know what it’s like to have to wade through hundreds of resumes. Whenever my office advertises a position, we drown in a swamp of resumes – some stellar, and others… well… they might as well be written in crayon. I know we’re a great place to work, but it seems these days applicants think we need to sell ourselves to them, because they’re so smart/experienced/fabulous. Sometimes it takes all my will power not to remind the applicant that with the pay and benefits we offer, as well as the fascinating work that actually makes a difference, they should be the ones selling themselves to us. More often than not, the attitude is, “show me how great you are, and that you deserve me!”
NEWSFLASH, SNOWFLAKE! We are not here to impress you. We pay good money for good skills. We hire quality people and reward them accordingly, and we screen heavily to ensure said quality. Don’t like it? Don’t apply! We are certainly not here to adjust to your whims.
Since I can’t very well inform prospective applicants that they won’t be issued safe spaces, pussy hats, safety pins, and free days off to focus on their political activism, I weed out potential snowflakes by informing them of the true benefits of working in my office.
You get to do a truly fascinating job that allows you to challenge your assumptions and stretch your mental muscles.
No, you don’t get a masseuse or your own office, but we do have a table filled with chocolate, cookies, and all sorts of treats people bring – especially when they go TDY to a faraway place! And we do get to travel! Places like Germany, Singapore, Britain, Luxembourg, and Romania are just some of the neat places we’ve been able to send our employees! And yes, you need to learn customs and courtesies. And no, you don’t get to indulge your “I only eat organically-grown, locally sourced produce that certifies it wasn’t mean to animals” predilections. You will be polite to your hosts, always be on time, always keep situational awareness, and act like a grownup, or you don’t get to go again. Believe me, I’ve done it.
You do get to interact with senior policy makers, and keep them informed about critical issues that impact this nation. No, you don’t get to choose what you brief or how you brief it. No, you don’t get to decline because you don’t like a particular policy maker. No, you don’t get to shove your own political views into your analysis. You will, however, become a subject matter expert on various issues that are vital to our foreign policy and national security, and you will develop your knowledge and expertise. I call that self-fulfillment. You like it? Come show me why I should hire you for this unique opportunity! I won’t coddle you, but I will teach you and guide you, and I will make you the best you can be at your job.
But back to Kyle Reyes.
When I read Reyes’ strategy for weeding out those who don’t quite fit the corporate culture at his company, I nearly squeaked with excitement! He calls it “The Snowflake Test.” Since he published an article about “The Snowflake Test,” it’s gone viral. I’ve seen him on the news, and he’s been on a ton of various radio programs!
I sent Reyes a note shortly after the first article was published with a short kudos for his work. He was kind enough to respond, and we had a brief conversation in which I conveyed to him how much I wished I could administer his “Snowflake Test” to those who apply for open positions with me!
Some of the questions are somewhat eclectic.
- When was the last time you cried and why? (At my son’s Army Basic Training graduation. Tears of joy)
- You arrive at an event for work and there’s a major celebrity you’ve always wanted to meet. What happens next? (I do my job. Duh.)
- What’s your favorite kind of adult beverage? (Bloody Mary)
Others are obviously designed to gauge your respect for the views and beliefs of others or your love of this country.
- How do you feel about guns? (I carry an M1911. My G23 is my other carry pistol.)
- What are your feelings about employees or clients carrying guns? (None of my business as long as they practice common sense safety.)
- What does America mean to you? (*Long discussion about the opportunities this nation provided me – ones I couldn’t get as a Jew in the former USSR*)
- How do you feel about police? (Much like I feel about others who stand up. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for your sacrifices. Your badge doesn’t come with a halo, however, so don’t abuse your authority.)
Still others take a peek at your personality and try to gauge how you would perform your duties in a marketing firm.
- What’s the best way to communicate with clients? (Politely, respectfully, but honestly and directly.)
- In a creative environment like The Silent Partner Marketing, what do you envision work attire looking like? (As long as you don’t come in with piercings all over your face, wearing leather chaps, no pants, and a tiara, I don’t care. Dress professionally. It doesn’t have to be a three-piece suit all the time, but if you come in wearing pajama bottoms and a torn t-shirt with fuzzy bunny slippers, I’ll personally escort you out.)
- Should “trigger warnings” be issued before we release content for clients or the company that might be considered “controversial”? (Nope. You hire us for our expertise and reputation. If you don’t trust us to release the very best content for your needs, maybe you should find someone else.)
Reyes apparently got a lot of flak from the very snowflakes he wants to avoid for weeding them out in such a rude and undignified fashion! After all, they shouldn’t be subjected to these intrusive questions or judged by their answers! They’re perfect candidates! They deserve an interview. They bring a lot to the table, and because they’re so special and perfect, the employer needs to sell the company to them. They’re special! They’re quality! How DARE he want to hire the best candidate possible for openings in his own company! Reyes’ attitude toward these entitled buffoons is the same as mine would be.
I was scolded by a woman on the phone yesterday who told me she wouldn’t take the test and “shame” on me for making people take a test to come work for us. She “demanded” I remove the test or risk losing out on “perfect employees” like herself.
Well, snowflake, it’s back to the heaping pile of applications for me.
I would probably send the woman a photo of her application in my circular file, because I’m not as nice as Kyle Reyes.