If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I like this idea that the extra precautions like the bulletproof glass don't actually serve a realworld purpose and they're just there to make the locals feel unwelcome. Because nothing says "I'm an asshole"/"a racist" more than spending God knows how much extra money to fortify your cash register area when you don't need to.

They couldn't possibly have their reasons.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's those goddamned fucking racist zipperheads and their long history of supporting Jim Crow laws and segregation. It's almost as if people forgot that Robert Lee was Korean.

 

[CiG]

Obviously virtue-signalling to anti-racists and risking being robbed/shot in the face >>>> making the locals feel unwelcome with your precautions.

 

[CiG]

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

https://twitter.com/ciccmaher/statu..._url=http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/40464/

 

[CiG]

I honestly don't like the idea of professors losing their jobs for the things they say, but at the same time advocating for genocide (even in some kind of retarded far-left ironic way) must be a universal line. Same with professor Johnny Eric in that video who called for first responders to let white victims die as a way to fight back against "whiteness."

Nobody would ever accept it from a right-wing professor and these extremist ideologues need to be pushed back against in some fucking way.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

He was advocating for "white genocide", which is code for miscegenation, not actual genocide.

 

[CiG]

I understand that, I'm privy to the language games of modern political discourse.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So then you know that he didn't advocate genocide, even ironically.

 

[CiG]

It was an ironic use of the word genocide in relation to erasing the white race through miscegenation. I see no problem with the way I worded my sentence in my post.

And the point would also be that any ironic use of the word in relation to any other race by a professor wouldn't be tolerated by university guidelines.

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem with your phrasing is that you’re eliding the fact that he’s poking fun at alt-right rhetoric, which hyperbolically casts miscegenation as genocide. It’s not an ironic advocaction of genocide; it’s an ironic jab at rhetoric that labels something genocide when it clearly isn’t.

He’s basically saying “if that’s genocide, then sure—hooray for white genocide!”

Within the context of the conversation, it’s entirely acceptable and not unwarranted.

 

[CiG]

Well I guess this is what happens when you decide to roll around in the mud with the alt-right and use their slang when you're a professor in a position of power, privilege and influence, you lose your job because we've created a society that doesn't respect context and there is a lot of danger in engaging edgy political rhetoric like he did.

This also wasn't his only controversy, there were several students who dropped his class because they were fed up with his rantings and racism. At this point I really have no sympathy left for professors.



He's not a serious thinker. He's a communist piece of shit.

 

[CiG]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

at alt-right rhetoric, which hyperbolically casts miscegenation as genocide.

oh the irony. "hyperbolically casts " .... like how you guys hyperbolically cast your own rhetoric about what the right "actually means/thinks"?

Oh and how about the dem nazis, mirite?

 

[Einherjar86]

Twitter is not the place to have that kind of argument, unfortunately. It’s how academics shoot themselves in the foot. Alas, they’re trying to engage the public, but doing it poorly.

On the flip side, the general public puts in zero effort when trying to have conversations with academics.

 

[CiG]

Like I said, I actually don't like the idea of professors or teachers being fired or pressured by the public to quit over things they say, but at the same time I think professors like the two interviewed in that video are having their cake and eating it too.

They're beneficiaries of academic freedom and the tolerance of colleges/universities - getting away with saying ridiculous shit all the time - while at the same time they actively engage in the no-platforming, silencing and mobbing up on anybody who says something "problematic" and this duality of contradiction has absolutely no balance to it.

I also don't really see much of this as academics trying to engage the public, they're more just virtue-signalling to their comrades and romanticising violent revolutions to the same degree the American right romanticises their military. Calling the massacre of whites during the Haitian Revolution "a good thing indeed" is just repugnant shit. It wasn't just slave owners and masters being killed, it was everybody. Men, women, children.

 

[Dak]

Twitter is not the place to have that kind of argument, unfortunately. It’s how academics shoot themselves in the foot. Alas, they’re trying to engage the public, but doing it poorly.

On the flip side, the general public puts in zero effort when trying to have conversations with academics.

Right on both counts. However, academics rarely do better on mediums other than Twitter, and of course the general public generally puts in zero effort in those other circumstances too. There's a dual issue of disconnect by those of the ivory tower from the experiences of those in the general public, combined with the IQ difference which makes the general public not give a shit even when that disconnect isn't an issue.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

View attachment 13382

He's not a serious thinker. He's a communist piece of shit.

Oh yeah, forgot about that part. nvm then.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw I think it's at least arguable that the white massacres weren't totally a bad thing in Haiti. From what I read, the slaves/rebels actually selectively killed their French masters, and allowed non-French white people, e.g. poorer Polish servants/workers to leave. It was more akin to a class war than a race war, even though the institution of slavery obviously helped to place the two within the same polarity. I don't see why women or even children should be spared when they directly benefited from and existed to perpetuate the institution that men put into power.

The genocide was a drop in the bucket compared to how Americans treated the Natives, for example. The real tragedy of Haiti wasn't genocide, it was how quickly a slave population that was actually relatively well-educated (compared to English and Spanish slaves) took their own freedom by force but lacked the institutions to maintain it, rapidly collapsing into a savage wasteland that to this day is one of the most backwards places on earth.

Prof is a dumbass if he think he can get away with admitting that, though.

 

[CiG]

Well for one, I still don't think it's reasonable to call the systematic massacring (if you read about the methods of Jean Jacques Dessalines I really can't think of any other way to describe his methods) of the whites in every area of Haiti a good thing. It's an absolutist statement on a subject way too complex to be reduced to Internet debate levels of retardation by a professor.

Two, from what I read the only common examples during the Haitian Revolution of people being given any option other than death was when many of the women were forced into arranged marriages or the biracial non-slaves being forced to massacre whites so as to not have only blacks complicit in the massacres.

But of course even this level of nuance is way above the grasp of a Drexel comrade.