If a college professor claimed the following,
"white people are committed to being villians"
That Africans arrived in North America before white Europeans
"Whiteness is going to have an end date"
"We gotta take these muthafuckers out"
Should this professor be disciplined in any way?
27 comments:
Severely. But does the university have penalties for professors who speak this way? That's the real question. If it does, this person should be gone.
Kanye. Kyrie. Herschel.
The Black voices Craig listens to. You’re behind on credibility. And sense. And humanity.
Yes, he should be fired for ignorance and revising history. He has no business being in his profession.
Should the professor be disciplined for what, exactly?
It would depend upon the context. For instance, the "take these mfs out" comment was "quickly followed up" by being clear that she's not speaking of violence. So, thinking that racist white people need to be thinned out - but not by acts of violence - well, that's just a reasonable conclusion. The professor noted that these things - even attitudes that last centuries - have a beginning and can have an end. Black people and their allies ostracizing and shaming white racists/white supremacists HAS had the effect of thinning the numbers of active white racism and the few who remain tend to hide in the shadows because they know how wrong it is viewed to be.
Sort of the same for those who are hateful towards LGBTQ people. Culturally in our nation and much of the west, for instance, it's no longer acceptable to oppress or attack LGBTQ people and the numbers of those actively opposed to/causing harm to LGBTQ people has declined. And in the case of racism and homophobia, that's a good, moral, just thing to happen.
Do you disagree?
Do you disagree that racist white people should see their numbers decline?
Why would you bring this up, suggesting she should be disciplined? Is it another defense of white supremacy that she's berating righteously?
"Should the professor be disciplined for what, exactly?"
I've chosen to leave my question broad in order to elicit the most possible responses. I don't want to impose limits in this case.
"Do you disagree?"
No, I agree that you've managed to excuse/defend what this professor said despite the fact that it's racist and appears to call for violence.
"Do you disagree that racist white people should see their numbers decline?"
I agree that numbers of all racist people should decline, but not through violence, or murder.
"Why would you bring this up, suggesting she should be disciplined?"
Because, it's a reasonable question. Certainly if a white professor has said things of this nature they'd be disciplined. Why would there be a double standard based solely on race? Why should a professor be able to appear to advocate violence and murder? Are professors not held to certain standards regarding what they can advocate?
"Is it another defense of white supremacy that she's berating righteously?"
No, what a stupid question.
those who are hateful towards LGBTQ people.
Dan keep spewing the lie that people are "hateful" toward LBGBTQXYZ people when all we want is for them to keep their perversions to themselves and quit trying go groom kids to be perverts and quit trying to force people to affirm their perversions! That isn't hate, bub.
So, IN SPITE of the reality that the professor IMMEDIATELY followed that sentence with "But DO NO HARM, I DO NOT SUPPORT VIOLENCE..." THAT is not enough for you. You're going to rip words directly out of context and say she was calling for violence even when her direct words contradict that damned stupidly false claim.
You're part of the problem of the modern GOP.
Craig...
Why would there be a double standard based solely on race?
1. Because in OUR REAL WORLD HISTORY, white people DO have a record of oppressing black people. We DO have a real world reality where white supremacists STILL roam the land, emboldened by Trump and the new MAGA "conservatism" posing a current real world threat. The inverse is not factual. OF COURSE, we have an obligation to hold white leaders more accountable for loose words that might be construed as endorsing violence. Our real history demands it and the only ones who want to sweep it under the rug are white supremacists and their allies.
2. There IS no double standard based on race from me. I never brought her race into this. The reality is that she clearly condemned any violence, even on white oppressors. Your suggestion/slander to the opposite is just another damned diabolical lie.
The facts are the facts. Quit living in your white privilege fantasy world longing for the "good ol' days" when "uppity blacks" weren't so offensive to your lily white ears. You'd fit right in at a Klan rally, Craig. Whether you realize that reality or not. They LOVE what you and modern conservatives are saying that emboldens them.
Repent.
Dan,
Given the sorts of things we're seeing in society, I does seem reasonable to ask if this professor is going to be treated in the same way that a white professor who said something inflammatory would be treated. So yes, I do believe that asking questions about how different people are treated is a valid question.
1. So what. Are you really suggesting that ONLY "white people" have oppressed other races/cultures? That black kings in Africa didn't oppress/enslave/kill those in other tribes? That in 2022 there are cultures/countries where people are being oppressed for their race/religion/caste/ethnicity? Excellent example of "the other guy did it" fallacy.
2. No, there is a double standard based on race from the professor.
But hey if you think making shit up ("Klan rally) is an effective response to racism, you go right ahead and keep making shit up.
"Those who are hateful towards LGBTQ people. Dan keep spewing the lie that people are "hateful" toward LBGBTQXYZ people when all we want is for them to keep their perversions to themselves and quit trying go groom kids to be perverts and quit trying to force people to affirm their perversions! That isn't hate, bub."
For some reason Glenn's comments aren't posting, this is one of them.
"So why would you not condemn Glenn and Marshal for their hateful attacks? Why would you not state clearly that you are supportive of LGBTQ people and opposed to conservatives like them? Wow, speaking truth to the LEFT (i.e. Trabue's ilk) is "hateful attacks." By the way, there is NO evidence that "sexual orientation" other than heterosexuality is inate. No one is born with homosexual desires, and even they there was some brain malfunction the gave them such desires, NO ONE HAS TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS--IT'S A CHOICE!!!"
Also from Glenn.
I'm going to point out the obvious reality here. I have never seen any objective/scientific/unequivocal proof that alternative sexual orientations is actually something that is innate and unchanging. That it's something that is hard wired into humans and is natural. Clearly the reality if heterosexual orientation is because it is the only way to reproduce in mammalian species and is necessary for either the BIblical commands to "Be fruitful and multiply" or the Evolutionary/Materialist/Naturalist insistence that reproducing one's genes is the highest goal.
Craig...
I do believe that asking questions about how different people are treated is a valid question.
AGAIN: WHAT DID SHE SAY that needs to be "disciplined..."? You disagree with black people with strong opinions about racism? Get the hell over it.
You think it's acceptable to punish people for HALF of what they said, ignoring the clarification? It's not. Get the hell over it.
That Glenn is ignorant of expert opinion and people's natural innate human rights doesn't make his bigotry any less harmful.
Are you okay with the attacks and demonizations that Glenn makes against your gay family and friends?
Or do you not have any (that you know of)? I know that LGBTQ folks don't always let conservative or judgmental people know about their orientation because they don't want the attacks and demonizations that you all continue to push.
Craig...
if you think making shit up ("Klan rally) is an effective response to racism
Not making anything up. What I said is that you'd fit right in at a Klan rally... meaning your words align with a bunch of what they say and believe. And they do.
And WHAT racism? It's not racist to say that "I want to see racists go away - and by that, I do NOT mean they should be harmed physically." You know that, right?
Get help, men. Talk more to black people and LGBTQ people and listen to what they say. ASK THEM how you can be a better ally and better show them love and support. Then listen to and DO what they say.
It's simple.
Glenn...
Wow, speaking truth to the LEFT (i.e. Trabue's ilk) is "hateful attacks." By the way, there is NO evidence that "sexual orientation" other than heterosexuality is inate.
What? The testimony of nearly EVERY gay and lesbian and bisexual and straight person in the world is not sufficient evidence? EVERYONE has natural attractions. YOU DO, Glenn, at least presumably. Why in the name of all that is holy and rational do you think - and where do you get off in thinking - that only the orientation that YOU happen to have is innate and everyone else is making it up?
Come on, Craig. This sort of gas-lighting and denying of the natural reality of LGBTQ folks is exactly the sort of oppression and denying of their humanity that causes such harm amongst so many LGBTQ folks. Craig, can't you find it within your own basic humanity and decency to call Glenn on this irrational and wholly unsupported attack?
Glenn, if you want to say that then, by that measure, there is no evidence of ANY sexual orientation, including straight. You don't really find women attractive, Glenn, because you can't prove it's innate. It's a stupid, unsupported, anti-rational claim you're making, in direct opposition to ALL the evidence.
Don't be an anti-science bigot. They're the worst kind.
When I saw the video of this "professor", she did indeed end with her disclaimer, which to me sounded like "Oh...I'd better mention I'm not calling for violence even though my previous words clearly do." This "professor" needs to choose her words more carefully if she hopes to be regarded as a good person seeking improvements in society. Based on the video, I'm not buying that crap at all.
Also, Dan likes to believe, apparently, there are no black people seeking to do away with white people, despite the words of this black woman. Even Dan has expressed a longing for certain white people to die out. And of course he defaults to this nonsensical, irrelevant "historically oppressed" crap to defend the racism of a black woman.
Art,
It's strange that folx like Dan give so much credence to this tacked on CYA attempt, but ignore the fact that Trump specifically told the 1/6 protesters not to engage in violence.
"AGAIN: WHAT DID SHE SAY that needs to be "disciplined..."?"
1. I asked a question about whether she should be disciplined, I didn't say she should. Although I'd argue that advocating getting rid of people based on their race is problematic. Of course the point is that other folks get disciplined for saying things less controversial than this. But I guess that because she's a black woman, she can get away with it.
'You disagree with black people with strong opinions about racism?"
No. Just with people who advocate getting rid of people based on their race, or any other racist crap.
"Are you okay with the attacks and demonizations that Glenn makes against your gay family and friends?"
I'm ok with allowing people to say all sorts of things that I may or may not agree with. You should try it sometimes. It's why I rarely delete your comments.
"You think it's acceptable to punish people for HALF of what they said, ignoring the clarification?"
No, I just see it happening regularly and wonder why she should get a pass. Of course I just asked a question, I didn't make a statement. Do you understand the difference?
"Or do you not have any (that you know of)?
What a stupid question.
"And WHAT racism?"
Suggesting that people be gotten rid of because of their race, seems to be racist by any definition.
Shockingly Dan justifies his made up bullshit without actually proving his claims with anything specific.
I talk to/listen to plenty of black/gay people. The problem is that they don't usually agree with the narrative you've committed to.
I'm going to make it clear for ignorant Dan Trabue:
It matters not how many perverts claim that their sexual orientation is inate, there is absolutely NO medical or scientific evidenced to support their claim. The claim is made by these perverts to justify what they do.
Again, even if a brain malfunction made sexual orientation inate in rare cases, God said homosexuality is an abomination. Just because someone feels an orientation towards sex with another person of the same sex, or for that matter with an animal, NO ONE HAS TO HAVE SEX!
OH, and why does Trabue have to label a truthful statement an "attack"?
>"Are you okay with the attacks and demonizations that Glenn makes against your gay family and friends?"
Please show me where I "demonized" or "attacked" anyone?
Stating factual information about homosexuality isn't an attack nor is it demonizing.
Dan is the expert at throwing out ad hominem attacks!
Craig...
The problem is that they don't usually agree with the narrative you've committed to.
BUT, you are speaking to a minority view within those groups, do you recognize that reality? You are finding the 1-10% of these groups who agree with you and then using that as a crutch against your bigotry. That's not a useful nor rational crutch.
Also, you should recognize that for many historically oppressed minorities, they do not feel free to share their opinions fully with those in the oppressing group.
You recognize that, too, right?
As to the rest of your false claims, if you base your conclusions ONLY on half of what they say and ignore the clarifications, THEN you are making faulty, false conclusions.
But again, that kind of BS is a BIG hit with the Klan, so, you have that going for you.
"BUT, you are speaking to a minority view within those groups, do you recognize that reality?"
No, I listen to and interact with people across the ideological spectrum. The problem you seem to have is that you are assuming that the "minority" is wrong because they are a minority. I'm much more interested in Truth, than is simply going along with the majority.
"You are finding the 1-10% of these groups who agree with you and then using that as a crutch against your bigotry. That's not a useful nor rational crutch."
Please prove this claim? The problem is that all humans have some level of "bigotry", and that all humans tend to lean toward hanging out with or listening to people with whom they agree. So yes, I am a normal human being, no I have virtually no bigotry against person or group because of the color of their skin. If you can't prove that I do, stop making the bullshit claim.
"Also, you should recognize that for many historically oppressed minorities, they do not feel free to share their opinions fully with those in the oppressing group."
Do feelings define Truth?
"You recognize that, too, right?"
I recognize that you're making that claim without proof. I also recognize that sometimes Truth and feelings conflict.
"As to the rest of your false claims, if you base your conclusions ONLY on half of what they say and ignore the clarifications, THEN you are making faulty, false conclusions."
What specific "false claim" are you referring to? Where have you proven objectively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this "claim" is objectively false? Where have you proven objectively that what "they" say (undefined, un sourced, vague, etc) is True?
"But again, that kind of BS is a BIG hit with the Klan, so, you have that going for you."
Again with the unproven false claims, and ad hom attacks. I guess when Truth and facts aren't on your side bullshit and ad hom are all you have left.
No one is more racist than white lefties like Dan. And once again with the "historically oppressed" crap, as if that matters to the behavior of this black woman. Worse, to suggest that black people are victims of some "oppressing group" is a rank lie told by white lefties who prefer their heads remain up their asses. Dan's a vile liar. There's no arguing that fact, and he uses weasel words and terms to promote and perpetuate his leftist lies. In the meantime, the real issues plaguing minority groups and the true causes of them go unaddressed by white lefties pretending to care.
Art,
I agree. A great example is the Twitter thread that Barrington Martin started which was only his re posting tweets by liberals that were racist. It's a massive thread and lets the left speak in their own words.
The excuse they'd likely use is that the people they act racist towards deserve it.
Craig finds a black professor who said something a bit explosive BUT who followed that immediately with the clarification that she wasn't talking about violence. Craig chooses THAT to suggest she should be disciplined or she would be, if she were white.
And at the same time, the corrupt pervert conman Craig and conservatives voted for en masse can continue making abusive, dangerous, false claims and threats against fellow Americans, including those in the press and justice department and that leader of modern conservatism gets a pass and Craig cannot find room to ever condemn his outright threats that result in actual violence.
Trump... "telling his followers it’s now time for the FBI and Justice Department “thugs” to be “dealt with.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/trump-ominously-evokes-jan-6-032151347.html
We see.
1. Actually, I don't believe that I suggested anything. I asked if she should be.
2. If a white professor had said this about blacks, they would have long been fired.
3. I've condemned much of what Trump has said and done over the past few years.
4. Strangely enough, on 1/6 Trump specifically told those at his speech NOT to engage in violence. This professor get's a pass from folx like Anon, but Trump get's crucified for literally doing the same thing.
"We see"
This is such an absurd comment. It's seemingly intended to be threatening, yet frequently is used in a context like this where the person clearly chooses to selectively "see' only that which confirms their prejudices and biases.
Craig...
1. Actually, I don't believe that I suggested anything. I asked if she should be.
By all means, make yourself clear: DO YOU or do you not think this unknown professor should be disciplined for what she said (which included, clearly, that she's NOT talking about violence against white people)?
2. If a white professor had said this about blacks, they would have long been fired.
Well, the reality is that black people in our nation's history do NOT have a history of oppressing black people right up into OUR LIFETIMES. White people do. There's one significant difference.
Do you recognize that serious real-world difference?
Craig...
3. I've condemned much of what Trump has said and done over the past few years.
But not ONE SINGLE POST - NOT ONE - condemning him for his lies about the "stolen election," nor for his encouraging of violent white supremacists and extreme conservatives for taking his attacks against what he calls the "election stealers" and "gestapo" and "nazis" who "stole" the election or the free press reporting the facts about it.
We SEE that you voted for this pervert conman and that you have issued NOT ONE SINGLE word for his words that encourage actual attacks that have actually happened by actual white supremacists and other conservatives who take his "nazi" and "gestapo" language seriously.
And yet, you find room and time for making a post about a progressive-minded black woman who said, clearly, that she's not encouraging violence.
And yes, Trump DID use a throw-away line about "not using violence," but it was in the midst of endless attacks against fellow citizens. He has an established history of empowering white supremacists and other conservatives who'd embrace violence. This professor does not.
And you remain silent, much to you shame.
Your children and grandchildren will rise up and call you accursed.
Get on the right side of history.
Apologize for voting for this idiot conman.
Apologize for not speaking out against his violent words.
Repent.
"By all means, make yourself clear: DO YOU or do you not think this unknown professor should be disciplined for what she said (which included, clearly, that she's NOT talking about violence against white people)?"
1. You do understand what a question is, don't you? Further, do you understand that when ones gives the answer to a question, it can discourage others from responding.
2. I believe that this professor should be held to the same standards as every other professors in regards to her speech. I believe that, at a minimum, she shoudl go through whatever disciplinary process is and have her comments evaluated.
3. I believe that regardless of the fig leaf she appended, that the fact that her comments were aimed at one specific "race" of people is racist on it's face.
4. I believe that she did exactly what Trump did, although she was much more explicit in her call for retribution against white people. I further believe that anyone who called for Trump to be disciplined for his much less specific comments, should be consistent.
"2. If a white professor had said this about blacks, they would have long been fired.
Well, the reality is that black people in our nation's history do NOT have a history of oppressing black people right up into OUR LIFETIMES. White people do. There's one significant difference.
Do you recognize that serious real-world difference?"
1. thanks for the tacit acknowledgement of your double standard.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. Calling for what appears to be violent retribution against the entirety of a "race", seems incredibly extreme.
4. Given the fact that this woman is a professor at a well regarded academic institution, likely to achieve tenure, and earning well above the average income in the US, it seems like she's speaking from a position of privilege herself. It's also possible that she achieved her position partly because of her race/gender.
"But not ONE SINGLE POST - NOT ONE - condemning him for his lies about the "stolen election," nor for his encouraging of violent white supremacists and extreme conservatives for taking his attacks against what he calls the "election stealers" and "gestapo" and "nazis" who "stole" the election or the free press reporting the facts about it."
I've written plenty of comments condemning all sorts of things Trump has done. I guess it only counts if I write a "post" about it. Yet, you've not even once criticized the recent exposure of a Ponzi scheme that funneled millions to DFL candidates (and lesser sums to a small number of GOP candidates). Nor have you criticized the executive branch's interfering with free speech on Twitter and Facebook. Somehow, you've decided that my "silence" on your pet subjects makes me a bad person, while you continue to remain silent on multiple topics.
"We SEE that you voted for this pervert conman and that you have issued NOT ONE SINGLE word for his words that encourage actual attacks that have actually happened by actual white supremacists and other conservatives who take his "nazi" and "gestapo" language seriously."
In 2016 I did acknowledge that I voted against Clinton in the presidential election. After that I decided that my vote is a private matter, and I have not made any comment about how I voted in 2020. But feel free to treat your assumptions as if they are True if it helps you feel better. Strangely enough, you didn't have a problem with the "NAZI" type language when DFL folx used it against GOP presidents and candidates. You don't have a problem with those who call conservatives "racist", etc. But you choose to call me out even though I've been critical of all of those things to the extent that they've actually happened.
"And yet, you find room and time for making a post about a progressive-minded black woman who said, clearly, that she's not encouraging violence."
Are you suggesting that it's appropriate to "get rid" of people based on their race as long as it's not "violent"?
"And yes, Trump DID use a throw-away line about "not using violence," but it was in the midst of endless attacks against fellow citizens. He has an established history of empowering white supremacists and other conservatives who'd embrace violence. This professor does not."
By all means, you are the best person to decide what Trump really meant, as well as what this professor really meant. I'd ask that you prove these claims, but I know that neither proof, nor answers are forthcoming.
"And you remain silent, much to you shame."
This is quite a claim, prove it.
"Your children and grandchildren will rise up and call you accursed."
Threats, well played. You sound like some kind of Vudun practitioner or something.
"Get on the right side of history."
Prove that you have perfect knowledge of what the "right side of history" will be. Historically, the "right side of history" has frequently ended up being the wrong side of history. I was unaware that history was a sentient being capable of value judgements.
"Apologize for voting for this idiot conman."
What an idiotic thing to say.
"Apologize for not speaking out against his violent words."
Why would I apologize for something that I've done. Why wouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard and apologize for your silence on various things?
"Repent."
I have, and continue to do so.
Post a Comment