DonkeyCigars

@Longhorn_Fan68 was called out for being either enthusiastically stupid or lying a couple of weeks ago and did everything in his power to deflect and avoid. Now he is on a one-man band tour to try and get me crowd-sourced by literally going back and negging every post, no matter the context or content, in order to be rid of me. He won't stop until I'm gone because he is a coward and a liar and by censoring me, it seems he thinks he will be rid of me. But I will come back as Longhorn_Fan69 and every iteration and permutation after that and remind you that censorship never wins. Just wanted to go on record before I can't post here any longer.

How does this: "Forbidden Courses" that invites top students from other universities to join us for a spirited discussion about the most provocative questions that often lead to censorship or self-censorship in many universities equate to: Promoting lies and attacking truth and a threat to democracy? Isn't a University supposed to be where a push-back on the status quo and a pressure test to the establishment is encouraged? For many years when the status quo and establishment was conservative, the university was a petri dish of liberal ideas and thoughts and "spirited discourse and provocative debate" and other weird clubs and investigations. Doesn't it make sense that when more and more of the status quo is liberal that the push back would be with more conservative thinking? Is the University's place to be a thought incubator for the anti-establishment and status quo?

I'm here to be a constant reminder that you are a coward and a liar. When you see my name and avatar, you'll have to reckon with your deeply shameful character. You are Longhorn_Fan68. A fate worse than death.

Hear, hear!

This is rich coming from you. Like, lobster bisque with extra butter, rich. Like Elon Musk rich.

I don't think that is exactly what they are looking to accomplish, though sure, some of that is a driver. Question for you: why are you so against a new venture like this trying to exist? Why are you so opposed to people and money (none of which ask anything of or from you) trying to build something in the headwinds of what will be almost surely failure? Your posture here is "just buy an existing school!' or "this already exists!" when there are valid reasons to want to create your own institution from scratch and set your own strategy and vision/mission that will likely have variance from what already exists.

1) I said in my first post that I think there is a low-probability chance of success. I think this fails. 2) I don't go as far as you do in derision, but I am skeptical and hesitant and think that your bold is a good inflection point; if/when some folks leave their jobs at established schools or professions to join, I think that signals a better chance of success.

I think you are spot-on that this is a great way to go about it, but I think you are being shortsighted, of maybe blindsided, in that there are a myriad of reasons why you'd want to take a different approach (e.g. in this case, build from scratch). There are various ways to get to the end state, to skin a cat, as it were.

I think in all likelihood this venture fails and it fails pretty miserably and might even have an embarrassing or shameful component to it as it goes down in flames. But I also think it's too early to say for sure that this is a naked scam and pure grift and ready-made disaster. I think we need to give it some time to see what sort of faculty and students it attracts and, most importantly, what sort of output comes from this. This is less like a traditional school, it seems, and more like an incubator or silicon valley house where people are living and working on different projects but with the more-or-less same philosophical basis for doing their work. If you are really young you can equate this to a YouTube Influencer incubator where likeminded people go to work on disparate projects but with the same loosely coupled goals. And I think this will resonate with a) young people who live in a world where the above mentioned are not only acceptable but favorable (digital natives) and b) smart people who want to push back and make an impact sooner rather than later. If you get some heavy hitters involved (sounds like they have some with Palantir folks) and get some good PR and legitimate monied conservative or libertarian business folks (Peter Thiel-- also did Palantir I believe, Elon Musk, etc.) then you attract the next wave of strong conservative/libertarian minds and if these folks can leave the University of Austin and make an impact and money, it will create a flywheel. Again, odds are low of success; high for outright failure. Need more time and data to see how it plays out, but I for one will be rooting for them.

Johnny and Penny sitting in a Tree. K-i-s-s-i-n-g.

GRIFT! To quote from the last page:

I am a hugger, tbh. Bring it in.

I will never deny doing everything I can to be a reasonable person. I think that is part of what makes someone a good human good being. Would you prefer that folks on here try to be unreasonable?

I'm not "aw shucks"'ing anything-- I presented an interesting article, in a reputable rag, which gave what I thought was a fair-and-balanced treatment of the ridiculous cultural moment of "Brandon" and it was germane to this thread. You disagreeing with the article won't hurt my feelings just as your agreeing won't flatter me. I hope you are doing okay, otherwise.