From The “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Files: This Is The Level Of Critical Thought Being Cultivated At The University of North Carolina

Yes, these students believe that bumper stickers and lawn signs are profound revelations of discovered truth.

In related news, some UNC students “drove home” because they “were scared for their safety in anticipation” of Mike Pence speaking on campus. That’s Mike Pence—you know, the almost invisible VP in the Trump administration who allowed the cast of “Hamilton” to harass him at a performance, and who will soon take his place in history among so many irrelevant and forgettable Vice-Presidents like Walter Mondale and Dan Quayle.


42 thoughts on “From The “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Files: This Is The Level Of Critical Thought Being Cultivated At The University of North Carolina

      • They’re protest signs.

        They’re not supposed to reveal some deep cosmic truth in the universe.

        They’re just short quips.

          • Yep. “Love is love.” Whatever that means. It is a good as “No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace.” It’s just much shorter and to the point. Truly. A good slogan needs to be short, sweet, direct, to the point, catchy, somewhat loosely based on grammar rules (though lately that is debatable) and not necessarily tied to reality or logic. It just has to make people think. Ask the sign-holder to define the terms “love”, or “justice” or “peace” and you might be in for the long haul, or your brain might collapse in on itself. Either way, arguing with or about slogans is a fool’s errand.


            • “It just has to make people think.” (bold mine)

              It does make me think…that I wouldn’t waste one nano-second allowing them to embarrassingly slobber through an incoherently disjointed explanation because (IMO) the think portion of the process has completely bypassed the sign-holders.

            • Even a dumb protest sign has to let people know what is being protested or what action is desired. “ROTC Must Go!” is clear. “Make Love, Not War” is clear. If what people think is “The person holding the sign is a moron,” then the sign isn’t working.

              • That’s the common reaction to every protest sign that one disagrees with, though. These signs aren’t unclear, you just disagree with them.

                And the comments here—calling people “snowflakes,” “dumb girls,” and guys just looking to “get laid”—display no higher level of “critical thinking” than these signs do, and in fact show a lot less.

                • What is it you think “love is love” means, exactly? Pederasty is OK? Incest is wonderful? Bigamy is terrific? Beastiality is swell? The point is that such a fatuous statement means nothing and everything; it’s lazy advocacy and cheap rhetoric. I disagree with “Lock her up!” but at least I know what it means.

                    • Again, among other things. All those lawn signs came out after the gay marriage SCOTUS decision. It’s not a protest if what is being advocated already exists. It’s an all purpose “the heart wants what the heart wants” trope.

                • These signs aren’t unclear, you just disagree with them.” (bold mine)

                  That the universal you? If so, that would include me.

                  If that’s the case, please show where I indicated I disagree with Love is Love and/or Fair Elections, whatever their intent; thank you in advance.

                • In defense of me writing they were “dumb girls,” I spent some time thinking critically about how to respond to the OP. And I was the first one to notice the Klingon, which clearly shows that I studied the photograph. It wasn’t until I had posted my response that I zoomed the photo and realized there were a couple of dumb guys there, too. So I did miss that, which probably got me categorized as some kind of misogynist.

                  …and some of the girls are well-equipped for Pancake Days, whenever that happens to be in NC.

          • Mike Pence is famously opposed to gay marriage. “ Love is love” is famously a pro-gay-marriage slogan. Even if you didn’t have that background knowledge, being unable to figure it out from context while calling the sign-holder a moron is the height of hypocrisy.

            • Gay marriage is a constitutional right. What is that sign protesting now? If the topic is gay marriage, why not say so? If the signs are all supposed to be aimed at Pence, what’s “fair elections’ in there for?

                  • But the courts had to codify that right correct? It wasn’t a “constitutional right” until fairly recently and if abortion rights can teach us anything, the Supreme Court can essentially take away a “right” if a law is reevaluated.

                    All of our rights are only real because the government chooses to uphold them.

                    Gun rights is a thing…that doesn’t stop people from protesting to maintain the second amendment.

                    Same concept.

                    • No, it was obviously an equal protection violation, so it wasn’t any new right by any calculation, much as the religious right objected. Abortion was different—the “right” was based on an “enumerated” right in the BORs, and then was a stretch from that. Equal marriage rights was always for all; as with slavery and the woman’s right to vote, it just took a while to be recognized. Saying there is a universal right to marry is a long way from saying there is a universal right to have your unborn child killed.

                  • …it’s only been a right for everyone in the last 8 years.

                    It could be overturned by the right SCOTUS appointees.

                    Any of our rights can be if a specific case makes it to the Supreme Court.

                    That’s what that person is protesting.

              • We thought abortion was a constitutional right for fifty years. Pence’s ideological brethren on the court just decided otherwise. Who says gay marriage isn’t next?

                “Fair elections” is less clear, but there are plenty of specific policy changes the left has asked for when it comes to the electoral process. It’s a protest sign, not a white paper. Sometimes they’re specifically designed to get people to look stuff up.

                  • And many, including Mike Pence, think the same of Obergefell. You’re making my point for me. They’re protesting Pence’s desire, shared by the religious right, to overturn Obergefell. People protest proposed policy changes all the time.

                    • “People protest proposed policy changes all the time.”

                      That’s exactly right, and that’s expected in a place where the people have a direct say in government and have the freedom to express displeasure in those proposed policy changes. I have zero issue with that. But that doesn’t mean that some protests aren’t stupid ones. And it doesn’t mean that some who protest aren’t stupid. People protest good causes in very stupid ways a LOT.

                  • Who is “we”

                    It was absolutely a constitutional right for the last 50 years.

                    You’re proving my point here and don’t even realize it.

                    It’s all based on how SCOTUS interprets the law.

                    We’re all one “bad” decision away from losing a right or gaining one.

                    Hence the sign.

                    • No. The law is the law. Rights are rights, whether they are written down or not. The Supreme Court doesn’t invent rights: it’s job is to determine what rights exist under the founding documents. A bad decision—and even honest abortion advocates over the years have agreed it was bad—“found” a right in the Constitution that wasn’t there. It never was there, and it isn’t there. Due Process is there, in black and white, and in basic legal principles. So is Equal Protection. Same sex marriage was always a right. Abortion never was.

                  • Jack, what are you talking about? You went to law school.

                    The Supreme Court 100% “invents”rights.

                    You know this. You’re being pedantic and I cant believe you just wrote that.

                    • No. SCOTUS’s job is to use judicial analysis and the text to determine what rights are already in the Constitution. They don’t legislate, and they don’t invent rights. In any event, the Due Process and Equal Protection rights are both in the Constitution. If the Court invents a right, it is breaching its duty and function, and the right is invalid.

                  • Jack again, you’re being pedantic.

                    Obviously SCOTUS doesn’t legislate, but they do “invent” rights.

                    Are you really arguing the Supreme Court didn’t codify the right to an abortion?

                    • Of course I am. The Supreme Court ruled that the right was already codified by the 10th Amendment’s enumerated right to privacy, as in the birth control ruling. The problem was that equating abortion with birth control was simply wrong. Again: the Court doesn’t invent or make up rights. It’s job is to figure out what rights legitimately flow from the text.

  1. They probably grew up in houses with those God forsaken, awful, virtue-signaling signs in their front yard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.