Guest lecturer at Yale fantasizes about shooting white people in the head

[Emily Lake]

Not aiming this at you, Gospel, just using this as a jumping off point.

Bruh, she not only publicly stated it, but also scheduled a lecture at freaking Yale to say she fantasized about killing white people as a psychiatrist administering to the mental health oF white people. I don't find that hill attractive enough to climb much less worth dying on.

All the focus in the press and social media seems to be on the killing white people comment in her lecture. But seriously, while I find it distasteful, that's the least of my objections to her position.

I'm far more disturbed by her framing skin color as a detrimental pathology than by her murderous fantasy. The core of her lecture was to frame a group of people as having an inescapable, untreatable, clinical disorder... because of the color of their skin.

 

[Gospel]

Not aiming this at you, Gospel, just using this as a jumping off point.

Bruh, she not only publicly stated it, but also scheduled a lecture at freaking Yale to say she fantasized about killing white people as a psychiatrist administering to the mental health oF white people. I don't find that hill attractive enough to climb much less worth dying on.

All the focus in the press and social media seems to be on the killing white people comment in her lecture. But seriously, while I find it distasteful, that's the least of my objections to her position.

I'm far more disturbed by her framing skin color as a detrimental pathology than by her murderous fantasy. The core of her lecture was to frame a group of people as having an inescapable, untreatable, clinical disorder... because of the color of their skin.

That's cool. To my knowledge it wasn't because of the color of their skin, it was because of some sort of guilt &/or inability to cope with certain realities introduced by means of the color of their skin. She did not say (and my memory is trash so forgive me because I don't wish to revisit her lecture) that their skin color itself was the sole ailment. One is an opinion that people can refute and cancel appointments or agree with and request more council. The other is outright unacceptable. To me, professionally it's just not a good look to fantasize about killing your patients white or not.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't necessarily take everything she said at face value, nor do I claim to know exactly which things she may have been engaging in hyperbole or thought-provoking intent over. That, in particular, makes it a not very good lecture, but on the other hand, it wasn't created with me in mind as an audience...unless it was. If it was intended to always go out into the public sphere, then instead, it may have been some kind of stunt. In any case, as I've said before several times now, I do not agree with everything she said. I'd say that upon first hearing someone, I tend to give them the benefit of doubt since there are many ways to interpret something and people often don't always express themselves ideally. Given that, when I first heard her, I partially agreed with about a third of what she said and disagreed with another third and the last third I gave her that initial benefit of doubt. Those are meant to be rough percents and I'm giving her less benefit of doubt now than before since I've listened to some interviews. I think she makes interesting points but also I have suspicions sometimes she is bullshitting or more precisely, engaging in sophistry. One thing I found interesting was that whiteness is more of a cultural phenomenon that it was claimed white people are susceptible to, but I read that external to the speech and still think some of the time this is what she referred to...because she had also talked about banishing a couple of BIPOCs from her life who were "white." This small nuance I think is a major point of "instability" of interpretation causing very diverse viewpoints because one person realizes this yet still went around saying she was only talking skin color but she also could have been making an analogy to how people speak of "black culture." She was also right a lot about behavior and some of those observations creeped into this thread. That said, my suspicions have also moved toward this being more of a stunt because she lays out how universities have been discriminatory toward her historically and so how could she have concluded she'd get away with a lecture this extreme, i.e. she had to have known the outcome would be that Yale would disavow her and that the mob would come to cancel her. Trying to analyze her lecture further or getting upset over her lecture is a serious waste of time. Those successful predictions she may have made about the outcome do have some significance though.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not aiming this at you, Gospel, just using this as a jumping off point.

Bruh, she not only publicly stated it, but also scheduled a lecture at freaking Yale to say she fantasized about killing white people as a psychiatrist administering to the mental health oF white people. I don't find that hill attractive enough to climb much less worth dying on.

All the focus in the press and social media seems to be on the killing white people comment in her lecture. But seriously, while I find it distasteful, that's the least of my objections to her position.

I'm far more disturbed by her framing skin color as a detrimental pathology than by her murderous fantasy. The core of her lecture was to frame a group of people as having an inescapable, untreatable, clinical disorder... because of the color of their skin.

That's cool. To my knowledge it wasn't because of the color of their skin, it was because of some sort of guilt &/or inability to cope with certain realities introduced by means of the color of their skin. She did not say (and my memory is trash so forgive me because I don't wish to revisit her lecture) that their skin color itself was the sole ailment. One is an opinion that people can refute and cancel appointments or agree with and request more council. The other is outright unacceptable. To me, professionally it's just not a good look to fantasize about killing your patients white or not.

I agree that fantasizing about killing people that you treat is just all around a bad thing to publicize.

On the topic of skin color... would you draw the same distinction if she were giving a lecture on the pathological mind of "blackness"?

 

[Politesse]

On the topic of skin color... would you draw the same distinction if she were giving a lecture on the pathological mind of "blackness"?

Writers within the realm of African American social activism have never hesitated to explore the psychological impact of white supremacy on Black minds. That's a major piece of the system, convincing people of their own inferiority and punishing them subtly or blatantly if they manage to push past that mold. I don't suppose you've ever read James Baldwin's "The Fire Next Time"? If not, I recommend it. It's not a long read, and might help you better understand the argument that is being made about the insidious impact of White supremacist ideology on White and Black people alike.

 

[Trausti]

On the topic of skin color... would you draw the same distinction if she were giving a lecture on the pathological mind of "blackness"?

Writers within the realm of African American social activism have never hesitated to explore the psychological impact of white supremacy on Black minds. That's a major piece of the system, convincing people of their own inferiority and punishing them subtly or blatantly if they manage to push past that mold. I don't suppose you've ever read James Baldwin's "The Fire Next Time"? If not, I recommend it. It's not a long read, and might help you better understand the argument that is being made about the insidious impact of White supremacist ideology on White and Black people alike.

This is so true. Black people have no individual agency and are permanently suspended by the miasma of Whiteness.

 

[Politesse]

On the topic of skin color... would you draw the same distinction if she were giving a lecture on the pathological mind of "blackness"?

Writers within the realm of African American social activism have never hesitated to explore the psychological impact of white supremacy on Black minds. That's a major piece of the system, convincing people of their own inferiority and punishing them subtly or blatantly if they manage to push past that mold. I don't suppose you've ever read James Baldwin's "The Fire Next Time"? If not, I recommend it. It's not a long read, and might help you better understand the argument that is being made about the insidious impact of White supremacist ideology on White and Black people alike.

This is so true. Black people have no individual agency and are permanently suspended by the miasma of Whiteness.

If you think that, you definitely need to read more Baldwin!

Being affected by the environment you were raised in does not have to take away your agency, though it will always threaten to do so. These things are not either/or. You're raised a certain way, and are therefore left with certain choices. What choices you do make are incredibly important, regardless of your skin color or any other social fact. In fact, becoming conscious of and therefore transcending strict social categories is the true meaning if not entire point of the #woke movement conservatives are so afraid of these days.

 

[DrZoidberg]

CANCELLED

View attachment 34170

New York-based psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani, who earned massive outrage over her 'shoot Whites' lecture at Yale University, was bombarded with embarrassing 1-star ratings. Khilanani came under fire after she claimed she had fantasized about “unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way”. The backlash saw Twitter calling for Khilanani to be "fired from Yale" although she isn't technically affiliated with the university. But a quick Google search on the doctor reveals that her Manhattan-based private practice has now been "permanently closed", as of June 8.

https://meaww.com/aruna-khilanani-m...losed-shoot-whites-yale-talk-one-star-ratings

June 8th was 15 days ago.

I hate cancel culture. I don't care what side is cancelled. I hate woke with a passion. But I still don't want to see them cancelled for just speaking their minds. I'm for free expression, no matter how horrendous that expression may be

 

[Gospel]

That's cool. To my knowledge it wasn't because of the color of their skin, it was because of some sort of guilt &/or inability to cope with certain realities introduced by means of the color of their skin. She did not say (and my memory is trash so forgive me because I don't wish to revisit her lecture) that their skin color itself was the sole ailment. One is an opinion that people can refute and cancel appointments or agree with and request more council. The other is outright unacceptable. To me, professionally it's just not a good look to fantasize about killing your patients white or not.

I agree that fantasizing about killing people that you treat is just all around a bad thing to publicize.

On the topic of skin color... would you draw the same distinction if she were giving a lecture on the pathological mind of "blackness"?

Yes. I just said it DUH. Opinions are things you can agree with or disagree with.

 

[Gospel]

CANCELLED

View attachment 34170

New York-based psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani, who earned massive outrage over her 'shoot Whites' lecture at Yale University, was bombarded with embarrassing 1-star ratings. Khilanani came under fire after she claimed she had fantasized about “unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way”. The backlash saw Twitter calling for Khilanani to be "fired from Yale" although she isn't technically affiliated with the university. But a quick Google search on the doctor reveals that her Manhattan-based private practice has now been "permanently closed", as of June 8.

https://meaww.com/aruna-khilanani-m...losed-shoot-whites-yale-talk-one-star-ratings

June 8th was 15 days ago.

I hate cancel culture. I don't care what side is cancelled. I hate woke with a passion. But I still don't want to see them cancelled for just speaking their minds. I'm for free expression, no matter how horrendous that expression may be

So am I, but the freedom to speak doesn't mean that everyone else loses the freedom to not do business with you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree it is very unlikely that she will act out her fantasy of emptying a revolver into a white person's head and walking away with a smile on her face and a spring on her step like she did the world a favor. But it's not impossible she won't do it. As I said earlier, there are plenty of psychos that do act out their fantasies.

Again... it's just a fantasy. It's got to be allowed to have fantasies. Even very dark, brutal and extreme fantasies.

This brings to mind a Swedish debate about pedophilia pornography. Drawings and texts. Not photographs. These are illegal in Sweden. In spite of no child coming to harm.

I draw a sharp distinction between fantasy and reality. And I'm cool with expressing fantasies, no matter what. No matter how much it may inspire someone. It's still just a fantasy.

There is "crazy" and then there is "crazy". And this woman be trippin'. And two minutes of scanning her social media output would have alerted anyone to just how batshit crazy she is. She's not a lecturer, she's not an academic, she's just a sad crazy lady howling at the moon. And if you want to indulge the crazy lady, have at it. But there is no educational value to it as Yale have now discovered.

No, we wouldn't want psychology students to be exposed to crazy people and beliefs. They should only be exposed to pure and wholesome beliefs. How else will they be able to help people who mental problems. I agree totally.

 

[untermensche]

This is no more crazy then somebody coming in and talking about capitalism and ignoring the constant oppression and violence that has come from leading capitalist powers throughout history.

 

[ZiprHead]

In my experience, people that get into psychology seem to have minor problems in that area themselves and think maybe they can figure it out themselves on their own. Kinda' like gay men joining the priesthood.

I think she could definitely use some time on the couch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my experience, people that get into psychology seem to have minor problems in that area themselves and think maybe they can figure it out themselves on their own. Kinda' like gay men joining the priesthood.

I think she could definitely use some time on the couch.

That's been my general opinion, also. Not all have some screws loose but I think an awful lot of them do.

 

[Politesse]

She definitely doesn't sound like she is doing particularly well.