Kamala Harris: Enjoy The Long Weekend

[Dill]

(06-12-2021, 01:39 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: If nothing about this bothers you, but you feel we need to be careful with words and pronouns, and things of the sort that surround other issues  then I'm not sure there's much of conversation to be had.  In this thread or any other.  Tell me now and I'll save my breathe in the future.

I have to get to bed now. I'll address your post tomorrow evening, after I have heard the talk.

But I do want to comment on this last part.

I doubt you'll ever hear me say there is "not much of conversation to be had" with anyone on any issue. 

I may at some future date decide there is someone I cannot communicate with, or who is not worth communicating with, but so far that has not happened. 

My reasons are partly ethical and partly (I think) rational, but I never set down pre-conditions for discussion, especially agreement with me at the outset on issues to be discussed. 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-12-2021, 12:28 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There was no autopsy report needed, nor a ME to weigh in.  No one was beaten with a fire estinguisher to begin with.  The guy you referring to (I think) was the officer who had a heart attack, and was completely seperate from this situation you've described.

A fire estinguisher was thrown at a group of cops and the one guy who was hopsitalized was released the same day.  How does this require "following the story until the day you die" to figure out what actually happened?

If you'd just take a second to be even the least honest you'd realize you're no different than many of the people you claim to detest.  You saw a BS story, never bothered to fact check it, and you've repeated it as fact months and months down the line because it fits your agenda.

And what's scary (to me at least) is that somehow I'll be associated with the right for pointing this hypocrisy out.  You can't go running around making completely bs claims when you've had ample time to properly inform yourself.  And if you choose not to do so then you should probably be really careful about what things you say, or just sit on the conversation entirely.

So I had a nice long reply typed out, but then I fat fingered the back button and lost it, so I'm just gonna re-type the last part.

If you wanna attack me for being hyperbolic for implying that Officer Sicknick died of just a fire extinguisher related injury, fine. But don't sit there and act like I didn't already own being wrong here.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 08:38 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So I had a nice long reply typed out, but then I fat fingered the back button and lost it, so I'm just gonna re-type the last part.

If you wanna attack me for being hyperbolic for implying that Officer Sicknick died of just a fire extinguisher related injury, fine. But don't sit there and act like I didn't already own being wrong here.

Go back and look at your initial posts and my replies and tell me who was more respectful.  I never gave you any shit about this until you basically accussed me of using the equivalent of Facebook to form an opinion. (Basically calling me an uneducated dolt)

You took a clear shot at me when all I did was provide a link for you to look into if you wanted to learn more about the study.  There was all sorts of information that existed in that thread.   And I spent a pretty good amount of time reading through it.  I also took the time to read through the Harvard study.

Look, if you don't want to spend more time on the subject then so be it.  But if you drop a link with absolutely no opinion or context attached, and someone is looking to have a conversation about it, then perhaps you could take a better approach than completely dismissing them.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 01:52 AM)Dill Wrote: I have to get to bed now. I'll address your post tomorrow evening, after I have heard the talk.

But I do want to comment on this last part.

I doubt you'll ever hear me say there is "not much of conversation to be had" with anyone on any issue. 

I may at some future date decide there is someone I cannot communicate with, or who is not worth communicating with, but so far that has not happened. 

My reasons are partly ethical and partly (I think) rational, but I never set down pre-conditions for discussion, especially agreement with me at the outset on issues to be discussed. 

When it comes to the quotes we've seen, I don't think setting pre-conditions for discussion (simply agreeing that these are vile statements that have no place in an educational setting) is at all an unreasonable position.  If we can't at least have a starting point of denouncing the languange used then it's abundantly clear to me that further discussion isn't something I'll be terribly interested in partipating in.

Change "white" in that women's speach to any number of other races or religions.  Would we really need to hear how she audbily spoke these words, the context in which they were used, or spend any time whatsoever side-stepping the obvious?

[BigPapaKain]

(06-12-2021, 10:46 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Go back and look and your initial posts and my replies and tell me who was more respectful.  I never gave you any shit about this until you basically accussed me of using the equivalent of Facebook to form an opinion. (Basically calling me an uneducated dolt)

You took a clear shot at me when all I did was provide a link for you to look into if you wanted to learn more about the study.  There was all sorts of information that existed in that thread.   And I spent a pretty good amount of time reading through it.  I also took the time to read through the Harvard study.

Look, if you don't want to spend more time on the subject then so be it.  But if you drop a link with absolutely no opinion or context attached, and someone is looking to have a conversation about it, then perhaps you could take a better approach than completely dismissing them.

Your entire reply to my link was implying I didn't bother reading the link I provided and using Redditor arguments as a basis for dismissing it. If you took me dismissing Reddit posters as calling you an uneducated dolt, that really says more about you and your self image than it does about me. If anything, I called the majority of Reddit idiots which c'mon man; anyone whose spent any time on Reddit knows that.

I posted a link with no context or commentary because it didn't require it; it was posted to stop the ignorant comparisons to the January 6th Capitol breach to BLM protests. That was it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-12-2021, 01:39 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here's the audio since you'd like to hear her talk.  And I'm not sure if your read the intial article I provided, but no video is being released (for obvious reasons).

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white

And here's some quotes from her lecture (with timestamps) in case you don't want to read or listen through everything...

This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)



I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a ***** favor.  (Time stamp: 7:17)



White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time.  (Time stamp: 17:06)



We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea. (Time stamp 17:13)



We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask. (Time stamp 17:54)


Keep in mind, this lecture took place at Yale, this women is still employed, her medical liscense is still intact, and none of this evokes the comedic talents of Richard Pryor, who she linked herself to.  Also, this is a college, not a comedy club.

If nothing about this bothers you, but you feel we need to be careful with words and pronouns, and things of the sort that surround other issues  then I'm not sure there's much of conversation to be had.  In this thread or any other.  Tell me now and I'll save my breath in the future.

Sure sounds like a racist PoS. I think there wouldn’t be so many conservatives who get triggered when racism is brought up if black racists got called out and held to the same standard. I know I would appreciate it. I didn’t dig in to any of this but taking it at face value this lady shouldn’t have a job.

I work with an Ethiopian and hearing the opinion he has of American blacks is pretty eye opening. He is a black guy and has some very strong opinions of American black culture and its failings. The racist black lady I work with is the worst coworker I have ever had. And from the way my Ethiopian coworker tells it there are plenty of other racist American blacks I work with.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 12:54 AM)Dill Wrote: "Black Psycho doctor fantasizes about Killing whites!!" This just seems like another of those news bits thrown out to prove that blacks can be racist too, and that there is a terrible double standard against whites (imagine if a white doctor fantasized about shooting blacks in the head!), so maybe black people shouldn't be throwing stones, "both sides do it," so let's all just roll back talk about race. But no, libs want to keep it going . . . etc. 

She's not black.  She's Indian-American.

Fwiw, I consider accepting language like this to be more than simply a double-standard.  I don't think you'll find a single lecturer that has engaged in discussion like this about other races.  Remember, this isn't just speech that occurred in private.  This took place on a college campus.  It's not as if Yale had a speaker a few months ago that was giving talk with similar language about Muslims, or Blacks, or Asians.

I find it absolutely incredible that anyone could read that and feel the need to hear more to come to opinion.  The hoops some jump through to excuse some behavior is astonishing.  Meanwhile, they're more than happy to denounce others that 1/100 as offensive.  I suppose it all depends on which race or religion is being discussed.  There's a word for that you know. (Hint: It rhymes with "bassist")

[Dill]

(06-12-2021, 11:12 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Dill: My reasons are partly ethical and partly (I think) rational, but I never set down pre-conditions for discussion, especially agreement with me, at the outset on issues to be discussed. 


When it comes to the quotes we've seen, I don't think setting pre-conditions for discussion (simply agreeing that these are vile statements that have no place in an educational setting) is at all an unreasonable position.  If we can't at least have a starting point of denouncing the languange used then it's abundantly clear to me that further discussion isn't something I'll be terribly interested in partipating in.

 
Change "white" in that women's speach to any number of other races or religions.  Would we really need to hear how she audbily spoke these words, the context in which they were used, or spend any time whatsoever side-stepping the obvious?

Sorry I am late responding.  But again, this comes down to our very different approaches to understanding social and political issues.

1. It's not clear to me what our further discussion could be about if we "simply agree" at the outset that "these are vile statements that have no place in an education setting." Would we just vent our anger as we confirmed our biases? What can we learn, if we think we already know?  I'll likely never agree that we don't need to learn/understand the original context of "representative" quotes in media reporting. For me, there are no special exemptions from this guideline.

2. So, "sidestepping the obvious," I listened to Dr. Khilanani's conception of her practice and its goals, as well as her experience as medical student and finally professional practicing psychiatrist who also treats white patients. I learned that--

A. She believes that white people suffer guilt and rage because of racism, and that they have difficulty acknowledging it. If they really want to "get past racism" they need to work through these emotions, which they cannot do if they don't admit they have them. White denial is for her a kind of medical condition. She also thinks that conservatives are better positioned than liberals, as they are more in touch with their rage, express it more easily. She imagines herself getting along better with Ann Coulter than white liberals, on the assumption Coulter owns her rage. 

 B. as a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, her job is to be empathetic with patients, to listen to THEIR experience, anxieties, fears, rage etc., not interject her own into the dr.-patient relationship. Patient honesty is important here. If patients have rage and acknowledge it, that is a first step in dealing with it. If they don't acknowledge it, that is denial and inauthenticity. (I add that, from what I know of psychoanalytic practice, it is not unheard of for doctors to challenge denial when they see, in efforts to break it down.) 

C. As a speaker, it is part of Dr. Khilanani's MO to model how she thinks psychoanalysis should work especially in treating mental problems connected to racial disparities in power.  So, at some moments of her Yale talk, she disclosed some of her own feelings of rage, e.g., expressed as the fantasy of shooting whites, and in her action of "unfriending" most of her white friends, frustrated at their difficulty in understanding/respecting her experience of racism/white supremacy. This unfriending followed years of attempted dialogue, she says, and among the worst offenders were "woke" white liberals who suggested that she was "overreacting" and "overly sensitive." 

I believe her assumption here was that, as speaker modeling a psychoanalytic approach, it was the role of the audience to empathize with her experience, and her role to share it honestly.

D. In the interview given after the talk, she says that obviously she does try to talk to white people, though she said it was a waste of time in her speech.  She also reminds us she was speaking to a specific audience of professionals and students, most of whom could be counted upon to understand something of the proposed intersection of psychoanalysis and race, but a number of whom probably believe that such explicit address of racial issues, disparities, and concomitant rage should be kept out of medicine. She would likely counter that is denial in the guise of presumed scientific neutrality. 

3. One of the "learning goals" of Dr. Kilhanani's speech was to set up "white peoples lack of empathy for black rage as a problem." That in itself inclines me to pump the brakes on any rush to judge her before listening to her, lest I simply model the very behavior she is complaining about. To "substitute 'white' in her speech for any other minority" would led us right past one of the problems she was seeking to make visible so it could be addressed, namely that people of color, as people, are not directly and equitably "substitutable" for whites in our existing institutions: they have more obstacles, "ceilings" and fewer opportunities. I understand why she might be very angry if, after experiencing institutional racism directly, she is then held to "equity" in her language to avoid discomfiting those who don't recognize the problem she sees. 

So in conclusion, I find that "the obvious" gives us very little to discuss regarding Dr. Kilhanani's speech. Whereas figuring out what problems/issues she is attempting to address, ranging from white denial of white rage/guilt to institutional racism in the medical profession, and assessing her methods in terms of audience, psychoanalytic practice, stated professional goals, does give us something worthy of discussion and exploration. 

[Dill]

(06-13-2021, 05:42 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: She's not black.  She's Indian-American.

Fwiw, I consider accepting language like this to be more than simply a double-standard.  I don't think you'll find a single lecturer that has engaged in discussion like this about other races.  Remember, this isn't just speech that occurred in private.  This took place on a college campus.  It's not as if Yale had a speaker a few months ago that was giving talk with similar language about Muslims, or Blacks, or Asians.

I find it absolutely incredible that anyone could read that and feel the need to hear more to come to opinion.  The hoops some jump through to excuse some behavior is astonishing.  Meanwhile, they're more than happy to denounce others that 1/100 as offensive.  I suppose it all depends on which race or religion is being discussed.  There's a word for that you know. (Hint: It rhymes with "bassist")

Yes, I suspected so from the name. I discovered she marks her ethnicity as "Hindu."  Still, she is addressing racism as a person of color.

I don't think that reading carefully to better understand context is prima facie "jumping through hoops to excuse behavior."  I think rather it is something people should be trained to do in school--secondary and college.  This should not be cast as an either/or choice: condemn or excuse.

Also, reading carefully to better understand context does not mean one is accepting or eventually has to accept what is so understood. I do think that moral/ethical judgments have to be made, as well as judgments regarding competence and purpose, which can add up to legitimate reasons for for condemning a speaker and even not allowing a speaker to speak. 

And I'm puzzled that you don't think Yale professors, and those in their school of psychiatry, don't talk about "races" or institutional racism. I'm not sure whether one has shared a fantasy about killing whites, but they certainly do address white supremacy and its effect on Black professors, students and Americans in general.

By the way, how race is frequently leveraged into a "double standard" in defense of a non-existent racial equity is a discussion we could be having as well.  I think that began in the early '90s when a publication famous for opposing King's civil rights protests, the National Review, did an about face and embraced his hope that his children would be judged on the content of their character, not their race--all while continuing to oppose current civil rights activism.

[Wes Mantooth]

In case anyone is picking up this thread late, and doesn't want to take the time to find the initial quotes, here they are:

"This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil."

"I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a ***** favor."

"White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time."

"We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea."

"We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask."

My position is that it doesn't matter if these are "fantasies", or if they're used for emphasis to make a larger point. I don't need to know the complete context, nor do I need a certain level of education on a specific subject to know this is completely uncacceptable. This type of languange has no place in academia.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-13-2021, 06:08 PM)Dill Wrote: And I'm puzzled that you don't think Yale professors, and those in their school of psychiatry, don't talk about "races" or institutional racism. I'm not sure whether one has shared a fantasy about killing whites, but they certainly do address white supremacy and its effect on Black professors, students and Americans in general.

Where did I ever say that (that I don't think Yale professors or their students don't talk about different races and racism)?

[Dill]

(06-13-2021, 06:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: My position is that it doesn't matter if these are "fantasies", or if they're used for emphasis to make a larger point.  I don't need to know the complete context, nor do I need a certain level of education on a specific subject  to know this is completely uncacceptable.  This type of languange has no place in academia.

Just as an aside, the bolded truly puzzles me so presented as a standard for academia.

It is completely at odds with the spirit of scholarly and scientific research which teaches us to question all manner of social dogma.

Professors and scientists do reject some views and theories as unacceptable, but they don't reach such determinations by ignoring context or "education level on a specific subject." 

[Dill]

(06-13-2021, 06:22 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Dill Wrote:And I'm puzzled that you don't think Yale professors, and those in their school of psychiatry, don't talk about "races" or institutional racism. I'm not sure whether one has shared a fantasy about killing whites, but they certainly do address white supremacy and its effect on Black professors, students and Americans in general.

Where did I ever say that (that I don't think Yale professors or their students don't talk about different races and racism)?

Perhaps I am not clear on what you meant by this: 

I don't think you'll find a single lecturer that has engaged in discussion like this about other races.  Remember, this isn't just speech that occurred in private.  This took place on a college campus.  It's not as if Yale had a speaker a few months ago that was giving talk with similar language about Muslims, or Blacks, or Asians.

"Like this" may be the problem here. Possibly no Yale lecturer ever disclosed a fantasy about killing whites in a lecture about acknowledging rage. Though I would not not bet a nickel on that.  I am saying they do frequently talk about institutional racism and white supremacy, and not only at Yale. 

https://news.yale.edu/2020/07/30/yales-emerging-psychiatrists-confronting-racism-curriculum

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/22678/

Given this curricula, I don't see how Khalinani's speech is exceptional. It certainly meets curricular goals, even if the administration doesn't like it.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2021, 06:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Just as an aside, the bolded truly puzzles me so presented as a standard for academia.

But honestly. If someone says "there's no reason to talk to white people, there are no good apples and they make my blood boil" or how they are demented, violent predators, how they have five holes in their brain, are out of their minds and killing a white person might be more blessing than sin, then there's really no need to add context. The only context that would change anything would be if these speeches went on to say "...are things someone despicable said which I hereby quote in disgust", or else there really is no excuse, no matter how many words you find to muse about academia and principle or institutional racism and empathy for the students or whatever really. These are racist, hateful words, Mr. Mantooth is right about that and I find it puzzling why you even try to talk around this. Sure seems like a deliberately upheld blind spot.

[Dill]

(06-14-2021, 03:36 AM)hollodero Wrote: But honestly. If someone says "there's no reason to talk to white people, there are no good apples and they make my blood boil" or how they are demented, violent predators, how they have five holes in their brain, are out of their minds and killing a white person might be more blessing than sin, then there's really no need to add context. The only context that would change anything would be if these speeches went on to say "...are things someone despicable said which I hereby quote in disgust", or else there really is no excuse, no matter how many words you find to muse about academia and principle or institutional racism and empathy for the students or whatever really. These are racist, hateful words, Mr. Mantooth is right about that and I find it puzzling why you even try to talk around this. Sure seems like a deliberately upheld blind spot.

Well, that appears to be Wes's position. But I am surprised you take that tack too. Do you disagree with me that scholarly and scientific inquiry teaches us to question social dogma, invites us to pursue the kind of inquiry which doesn't already have the answers at the beginning?  The modern research university was born with Humboldt's terms Lern- and Lehrfreiheit, right? That doesn't mean bad ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc. cannot be superseded or rejected, but we don't start with rejection. We start with inquiry and analysis, from which rejection can proceed, be rationally argued for if justified, but not demanded at the outset of discussion/inquiry. I'd like to know if you disagree with this "musing" about the Academic research ideal, as the sine qua non of the research university. And if you do agree, why then should that ideal should be cast aside here, as if we were reading tweets encapsulating political views rather than statements made in the process of academic demonstration of how one begins to process rage by acknowledging one has it and describing the experience.

Because I prize those academic ideals, I find it hard to assent to rejection prima facie before analysis, before I have relevant background on the speaker, what was said, or why. And if I choose not to be coerced into rejection before analysis by a shift in focus to my character to explain why I won't jump to conclusions in this case, I ask why principled refusal should cast me as "talking around a deliberately upheld blind spot" or, worse, something that "rhymes with bassist"? Neither of those responses engages with the points I have actually made about speaker intent and context--unnecessary to engage Khilanani's points on the ground she made them, and same now for Dill. 

A further point, one ALWAYS places other people's statements in some kind of context in order to make sense of them. We make assumptions about speaker intent and other parameters. So, taking up again the above mentioned ideal, it matters greatly how we are imposing that context, how aware we are of what we bring to statements we decode, and especially if we are replacing the original context with something else--without even realizing, let alone acknowledging that. 

This awareness/investigation of context also includes asking why this lecture is selected for news attention while others about the same topic (e.g., the other Yale lecture link I posted above) are not--thus sending Khilanani's statements into a circulation of venues where there will be little interest in the original context, perhaps illustrating a lead theme of her talk--absence of white empathy for Black rage. 

It seems to me that you, Wes and others are responding to soundbites from a news article as if they had been presented as a series of tweets by someone who actually believes all white people are "demented predators" and "killing a white person might be more blessing than sin." One result of this is that someone who is thinking deeply about current, unbalanced race relations, and posing serious questions to both whites and people of color regarding the issue of rage denial, is suddenly just a person using "racist hateful words," and we should condemn her and those words rather than address the questions she has framed with them. "People of color can be racist too! Don't excuse 'their' racism with double standards" looks like the best lesson we can take from that impoverished reading.  Nevermind that POC generally aren't in control of our medical institutions and imposing a racial double standard upon whites and denying it at the same time.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-14-2021, 01:58 PM)Dill Wrote:
It seems to me that you, Wes and others are responding to soundbites from a news article as if they had been presented as a series of tweets by someone who actually believes all white people are "demented predators" and "killing a white person might be more blessing than sin."

These aren't soundbites, or a single sentence taken out of context.  These are full paragraphs, 5 of them in fact.  One only needs to look at the title to know this is clearly a theme and not something that is cherry picked. 

That title?  "Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind"

As for rest of your post, where you're holding up universities to be these bastions of free speech and that they should always be open to any and all discussion, I'm going to assume you haven't being paying attention these last few decades.

The title of Headmaster?  Removed, because people complained it had racial connotations.  (Forget the context)

Conservative student group books Ben Shapiro?  Speech is cancelled because some students claim to feel unsafe.  University bans him and threatens arrest if he steps on campus.

Harvard professor argues university shouldn't dictate rules for Halloween costumes.  Her reasoning is that students should police themselves and these decisions are important to their development.  Also argues it allows for discussion and the ability to learn from mistakes.  Husband, who is also a Harvard professor defends her against backlash.  She is fired and he is forced to resign.

Evergreen professor argues against a day that forbids "whites" from stepping on campus?  He was run off campus and was forced to resign.

Lady says she has fantasies of shooting white people and wiping the blood off her hands while skipping away gleefully?  Let's hear what she has to say, there could be a larger point here and this could just be for emphasis.  Reasoning: It's so important that colleges allow speech like this.  That's what college is all about.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I see we're running into the "racism requires institutional power" argument. If we are ever going to make progress on the issue of race we're going to need consistent standards for what constitutes racism and racist behavior/speech. Denying racism by anyone who is not white as "less than" or not as important because they lack the institutional power to really enact their racist beliefs will only achieve what we are seeing now; embolden racists who are not white while normalizing their conduct and further widen the racial divide by allowing racism against whites while simultaneously telling them that what they're experiencing isn't real racism.

"It's OK when we do it" will only make things worse and we see near daily examples of this. Either racism is bad and we need to root it out and condemn it or it's not. Having multiple standards for racist behavior, ironically based on race, achieves the exact opposite of what most people claim to want.

[hollodero]

(06-14-2021, 01:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, that appears to be Wes's position. But I am surprised you take that tack too. Do you disagree with me that scholarly and scientific inquiry teaches us to question social dogma, invites us to pursue the kind of inquiry which doesn't already have the answers at the beginning?  The modern research university was born with Humboldt's terms Lern- and Lehrfreiheit, right? That doesn't mean bad ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc. cannot be superseded or rejected, but we don't start with rejection.

I reject hate speech from the start, and this is hate speech. It doesn't get a pass, or a second glance, or a justification of sorts just because it stems from the academic world and not from a Trump rally.

I am all for challenging opinions on campusses, even though many American campusses seem to have quite the different idea on that. But a spade is a spade. Musing about shooting white people without guilt is bad, and so are all the other blatantly racist comments that were quoted in that very same spirit and context. End of story.

[Dill]

(06-15-2021, 11:12 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: As for rest of your post, where you're holding up universities to be these bastions of free speech and that they should always be open to any and all discussion, I'm going to assume you haven't being paying attention these last few decades.
The title of Headmaster?  Removed, because people complained it had racial connotations.  (Forget the context)
Conservative student group books Ben Shapiro?  Speech is cancelled because some students claim to feel unsafe.  University bans him and threatens arrest if he steps on campus.
Harvard professor argues university shouldn't dictate rules for Halloween costumes.  Her reasoning is that students should police themselves and these decisions are important to their development.  Also argues it allows for discussion and the ability to learn from mistakes.  Husband, who is also a Harvard professor defends her against backlash.  She is fired and he is forced to resign.
Evergreen professor argues against a day that forbids "whites" from stepping on campus?  He was run off campus and was forced to resign.

Thanks for responding, Wes.  Yesterday, I overwrote my first response to you. Today I am going to reply in two abridged posts, first addressing the issue speech in academia.

For the record, I do not hold up universities as “bastions of free speech.” Modern research universities are, rather, supposed to be bastions of academic freedom. This means certain kinds of academic speech should be protected from political religious censure (hence the role of tenure), but not disciplinary*/academic. Because the goal is to foster free inquiry, “offensive” or “divisive” speech is tolerated to different degrees in different venues within academia—in graduate more than undergraduate classrooms, and faculty lectures more than commencement speeches, etc. Fostering that goal includes teaching students to tolerate different/divisive viewpoints and language too. In consequence, such speech is often tolerated to a greater degree in academia than elsewhere. But I have absolutely not asserted that universities “should always be open to any and all discussion.” All political/religious views do not have equal right to place at the table. Astronomy depts. don’t teach Ptolemaic astronomy.

That said, I turn to your examples: there is something unclear about your position regarding them, as all seem to show free speech obstructed on campus by people who, following Hollo, think “hate speech should not get a pass or a second chance”; and who, like you, wonder why the “haters” still have their jobs.   The examples are to establish that I “have not been paying attention these last few decades.” To what?  I guess you are trying to show that U.S. universities are not “bastions of free speech.”

Does the severely reduced Evergreen State example show that? That school had a traditional “Day of Absence/Day of Presence” ritual from the early ‘70s, based on the play in which Black people disappear from a Southern Community leaving a gaping hole in its labor/culture. On the “Evergreen Day of Absence” minorities were invited to off campus workshops to discuss racial issues. White people attended workshops on campus to reflect on the absence of their peers. Participation was voluntary, followed by a “Day of Presence” in which all the community came back together to celebrate unity.

In 2017, after Trump’s election, a student faculty committee of some 200 people decided that that year they would invert the ritual and whites would be invited off campus. Also, there was recognition of multiple identities. E.g., some could identify as both white and black, attend workshops on both sites. (Here is how the change in form was presented to students: http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/day-of-absence-changes-form/.)

One white professor objected to the proposed racial role reversal in a campus email, saying “phenotype” should never determine who should be allowed to speak or be on a campus. Though the policy only “encouraged” people to follow the reversal, he characterized it as “force.” Some students later disrupted one of his classes shouting “racist,” a video of it went viral, and the professor, in turn, went on Tucker Carlson (bad move for a professor accused of racism).  The amplified protest drew far right groups to campus to protest. Students counter protested, some barricading a building demanding the administration act.

This is one of the few recent campus conflicts which has risen to a level commonly seen in the ‘60s. When the dust settled, some 80 students were disciplined and 6 campus staff resigned, including Rashida Love, “ringleader” of the PC anti-racists. https://crosscut.com/2017/12/evergreen-state-college-racial-protests-professor-resigns-olympia.  Another resigned after accusing colleagues of racism and white supremacy. https://www.foxnews.com/us/evergreen-professor-who-made-anti-white-comments-resigns-gets-240g-settlement. And State Republican lawmakers proposed defunding the school altogether. The “Day of Absence” now appears gone for good, but this does not look like a victory for PC censorship. Other administrators, professors, and students on other campuses are studying this example to see what went wrong, as a model of how NOT to restrict free speech. 

You refer (no link) to a “Harvard professor” allegedly “fired” for suggesting students could think about Halloween costume without paternal guidance from the administration. You might be referring to Erika Kristakis, who resigned a position at Yale’s Silliman residential college after a year of “Halloween costume” controversy. Kristakis’ husband was not “forced to resign.” He stepped down from basically the same post, and stepped up to become the university’s Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science. So both still teach at Yale and hold administrative positions there, Erika in the same program which invited Dr. Khilanani to speak. While I would be more careful about burdening frequently victimized students with their own defense than the Kristakis, their positions on academic freedom align with mine, as stated above. So far as I can tell, the protests against them proved an embarrassment to the university and its program, spawning a range of books on “snowflake” students, as well as policy changes (which I am not clear on yet and so won’t speak on). No one was fired or “forced to resign.”

The "headmaster" controversy, which I find somewhat silly, is all about denying the relevance of context. The controversies around Shapiro are in part security concerns, in part deliberate provocation on Shapiro's part, and in part created by people who think "hate speech" should not be tolerated. Shapiro-style controversies are the daily fare of Fox news, but from my perspective, Academic freedom has been constantly under threat since U.S. universities adopted the research model in the 19th century.  Since WWII, the number one threat to that freedom has been the military industrial complex, in combination with the New Right's push to delegitimize universities, to reduce their funding to open them more to market forces, and to intervene directly in their curricula and hiring practices. A few "leftist" students and faculty challenging the status quo on a relatively few campuses is not a sizeable threat, when one considers "threat" from a longer historical perspective.

*”Disciplinary” as in standards specific to different academic disciplines and fields—Anthropology, Botany, Chemistry, Cultural Studies, Economics, Education, History, Law, Mechanical Engineering, Nursing, Physics, Etc.

[Dill]

(06-15-2021, 11:12 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: These aren't soundbites, or a single sentence taken out of context.  These are full paragraphs, 5 of them in fact.  One only needs to look at the title to know this is clearly a theme and not something that is cherry picked. 

That title?  "Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind"

Lady says she has fantasies of shooting white people and wiping the blood off her hands while skipping away gleefully?  Let's hear what she has to say, there could be a larger point here and this could just be for emphasis.  Reasoning: It's so important that colleges allow speech like this.  That's what college is all about.

Part II   "Full paragraphs" don't create enough context for the statements you selected to quote. 

E.G., when you write "there could be a larger point here and this could just be for emphasis," I can't help but notice you don't say anything at all about that possible larger point, and provide nothing from Khalinani's speech or learning objectives to suggest what it might be. THAT would be putting the quotes in context. But you are not even looking there, because you have supplied all the context you want to.

But your context cannot be the one Khilanani supplies, because hers requires that larger point or points. 

When you just trot out individual statements, or even a bare paragraph, you are inviting people to fill in their own context, what they believe they "already know" about "hate speech" or "institutional racism" and the like. So what they'll hear is not likely what Khilanani is saying. I.e.,

A. someone claiming that the basic work of dealing with negative effects of racism is emotional, not intellectual, and who wants POC to acknowledge and work through anger at whites, while arguing a large part of that anger arises from the fact that whites separate themselves from their own history of racism and deny the legitimacy of POC anger; but rather 

B. just another POC mouthing off white hate and getting away with it. 

When you say, apparently mimicking what you take to be my argument, "It's so important that colleges allow speech like this," it looks like "this" just refers to the decontextualized statements you have quoted, the "B" of your bare quotes, not the "A," of Khalanani's fuller argument and goals as speaker. It IS important that colleges allow A: a lecture on how the process of dealing with rage against white supremacy must, for POC, start with acknowledgement of that rage, however severe and scary, as well as acknowledgement that whites will deny the ground of that rage, or their maintenance/benefit from it (the "psychopathic problem" to which the title refers). 

Same with title. What is the "Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind" according to her? And more importantly, does she establish that that problem is a problem? It sounds to me like you are not asking those questions, not interested in the answers, but rather implying that title already invalidates any argument she might have. 

In any case, so far as I can tell, I am the only one on this thread who has attempted to reconstruct Khilanani's argument before passing judgment.* That seems to be your and Hollo's primary disagreement with me--that I would make the effort to do that, rather than judge immediately on the basis of bits and pieces. 

At this point, I'd like to see how her fellow professionals respond to her argument. I don't know much about child psychiatry and the issues for POC arising from white domination of mental health practice, and so am unable to tell whether Khilanani is breaking new ground, repeating what people already know but with more "colorful" language, or is pushing practice into regions without accountability.  

*However, I am having difficulty understanding the recording of Khilanani's lecture. And I haven't yet found a transcript of it. There are places where I can make nothing of 2-3 sentences in a row. I am forced to rely more on the interview which follows.