• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

I'd like to ask for some disambiguation here...

Do you believe that Yale has the right to invite whoever the hell it wants to give a lecture on whatever the hell topic they want?

Do you believe that a guest lecturer has the free speech right to express any opinion they want to as an individual?
Do you agree with the content of the speech given by Khilanani and think there is nothing objectionable in it?
Do you think that a guest lecturer invited by a university to give a speech should be protected from criticism regarding the content of their speech or their publicly expressed views?

Do you think that publicly expressed sentiments should be viewed as having bearing on a person's ability to objectively and fairly do their job?
Do you believe that Khilanani's expressed views regarding white people could be seen as a barrier to her ability to treat white patients?
 
I'd like to ask for some disambiguation here...

Do you believe that Yale has the right to invite whoever the hell it wants to give a lecture on whatever the hell topic they want?

Do you believe that a guest lecturer has the free speech right to express any opinion they want to as an individual?
Do you agree with the content of the speech given by Khilanani and think there is nothing objectionable in it?
Hasn't it already been established her comments were out of context and it seemed no one complaining about her speech was familiar with it in the least other than what The Mail reported?
 
An interview with Dr. Khilanani

KH: Your bio online says you are a “Forensic Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, with expertise in violence, racism, and marginalized identities. I left academic institutions because of institutional racism. Word.” Tell me about that. What happened?

AK: I trained at Cornell and Columbia and NYU and I really experienced all aspects of Cornell and Columbia as very racist. Less so NYU. NYU I found to be a lot more open. Cornell, I think we had one black faculty member. When I was at Columbia we had, I think, one black psychoanalyst. And just the way of thinking was all the same.

Do you have examples of what you experienced?

Sure. When I was at Cornell, I got beat up by a patient’s family member. I have a friend who is blonde and when she got threatened [by a patient] I think they did a Grand Rounds or a talk or some kind of symposium. They really addressed it. She was given a lot of support. And I’m not even sure if she was actually hit or not.

Now, when that happened to me, and I actually got beat up, the way they responded was, “Well what do you think you did to elicit this?” That's the question I got. Like I must have done something to provoke the attack.

Did you file a complaint?

No, because the more that you push back, the more they are going to keep attacking you. Also, in my first year, along with another person of color, I had the most Saturday call. These things are not incidental. There was a meeting where they actually tried to take away my vacation from me.

Why?

They came up with this idea that since I hadn’t put the request on the calendar then they’re not going to give it to me. So that one I did push back on. That one I reported. It was a very chilling conversation that I had with somebody. This is how these chilling conversations go. It’s never through email. They’ll call you on the phone and say, “We need to talk to you about something,” because they never want any of this stuff documented. They’ll be like, “Since you didn’t put this on the calendar, you’re not allowed to have vacation.” And I said, “So-and-so and so-and-so didn't put it on the calendar. Why do they get vacation?” And they’re like, “Do you really want to put yourself in the position where you're pointing out your colleagues’ stuff?” Like they needed to make me the person who is calling out my colleagues — not that it was unfair.

When was this?

When I was in residency. Either 2007 or ‘08.

Clearly the national conversation has changed a lot. I think in 2007, 2008, there were probably very few people who knew what anti-racism was. There was a lot more ignorance on the part of white people. Do you think things have changed in any meaningful way?

In some places things are starting to change, in other places, they really can’t reflect on themselves because there’s a lot to lose. I have a question for you.

Sure.

Is what you're writing going to be from a conservative perspective?

Well, I’m not conservative so, no.

I ask because I actually think that conservatives are psychologically healthier.

Interesting.

They are more in touch with their anger and negative feelings. They can articulate it. They can say it, they’re not covering it up or like “Oh my god, I’m amazing, I love all people.” There's not all this liberal fluff of goodness. Conservatives can go there. They can say things that are uncomfortable that I think liberals would shirk at or move away from or deny.

I would feel more comfortable hanging out with Ann Coulter than a lot of liberals because she’s unlikely to do anything. She’s in contact with her anger and her hatred, and I think that needs to be worked through, don't get me wrong, for the country to heal, but she's actually in contact with those feelings that a lot of people can't say out loud and that's a safer space. Now do I agree with her? No. But liberals have no access to that at all. The thought is forbidden.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you think liberals would be healthier if they expressed racism.

Absolutely. Well, not racism, because racism is an action. Racism occurs in a couple situations: when you are unaware of aspects of your unconscious, then it will come out in the form of an action. So if you are not aware of your own hatred and rage, it’s going to come out in an action if the feeling is not metabolized. For people who can say that they hate something and work through that feeling, then there’s more hope there. That’s where the work really needs to happen. I can’t really help the liberal who says, “There’s no problem here.” I can't do that much with that person. This country doesn't really give white people the tools to deal with their negative feelings.

I know you have a background in critical theory. How did you go from academia to psychiatry?

My masters is in humanities and the focus is largely on critical theory. I don't know if you’re familiar with the University of Chicago, but it was very critical theory-heavy when I went. I did pre-med stuff in undergrad and had always been thinking of these issues. I also majored in English Lit and wondered about other ways of thinking. And I was interested in the unconscious for a long time, so it wasn't that big of a jump for me.

From my experience, therapists tend to act pretty neutral. Is your practice like that?

Not at all. I think that's a part of the racist aspect of psychoanalysis, this idea that people are neutral is, I think, a complete fiction. But I would say that who I am inside the room is exactly who I am outside the room. My patients have a pretty good sense of who I am. I’m not the stereotype of the psychoanalyst where I’m withholding or won’t say anything or will just be there as a sounding board because that sounds really fucking cold and empty. That sounds awful. I do have people sit with their emotions and get into unconscious stuff but I’m there as myself to be with them.

Talk to me about the unconscious. What is this?

Critical theory is about how you are positioned in the world. Ever since I was a little kid, since I’ve interacted with people who are white, and especially white women, I would notice that things were really off. So what I’ve done by going through psychoanalytic training, which is all about getting in touch with the unconscious, is literally work backwards. I'm like, “Ok, I’ve noticed that white people tend to put me in certain roles. White women will experience me this way, white men will experience me this way.” I'm going to use psychoanalysis to work backwards and treat all of this as a projection to see what I can learn about their mind.

What do your sessions look like?

I don’t do CBT [Cognitive Behavioral Therapy], I don’t do DBT [Dialectical Behavioral Therapy], I don’t do med management, except like once every three months. I only do intensive psychotherapy or intensive psychoanalysis with or without meds. I largely work with the unconscious. What does it look like? It's different for everybody, but the way people organize their anxiety is usually very meaningful. And the narrative they tell me about it is how they are uniquely suffering. I feel like it's my job to help them with that.

Do you think that it’s your mission or your job or your duty to get to the root of a white person's racism or deal with their whiteness?

No. That makes it seem like it’s for me. If I were to do that it would be selfish as fuck. Do I focus on ways I think race is seeped into everything, yes, but it’s not for me. I can actually see how white people are suffering in a way that is very unique and different from people of color.

More in the link.

A recording of Dr. Khilanani's lecture is in the link.

Also, the Dr.'s practice has been permanently closed.
 
I'd like to ask for some disambiguation here...

Do you believe that Yale has the right to invite whoever the hell it wants to give a lecture on whatever the hell topic they want?

Do you believe that a guest lecturer has the free speech right to express any opinion they want to as an individual?
Do you agree with the content of the speech given by Khilanani and think there is nothing objectionable in it?
Hasn't it already been established her comments were out of context and it seemed no one complaining about her speech was familiar with it in the least other than what The Mail reported?

No, that hasn't been established. It's been claimed. While I don't have a direct transcript or recording of her speech, she has provided several interviews to other people - some of which have been linked in this thread - wherein she has reiterated her views. From those, it's pretty apparent that no context exists which would materially alter the concept being expressed by the quoted elements... and you know the entire TITLE of her presentation.

So... How about answering the question rather than dodging it? How about answering all of the questions?
 
I'd like to ask for some disambiguation here...

Do you believe that Yale has the right to invite whoever the hell it wants to give a lecture on whatever the hell topic they want?

Not in this specific case. It's a lecture for credit and so there should be a qualified speaker and a pre-approved topic that makes sense in light of what the credits are applied to.

Do you believe that a guest lecturer has the free speech right to express any opinion they want to as an individual?

In this case it should have some relevancy.

Do you agree with the content of the speech given by Khilanani and think there is nothing objectionable in it?

I do not agree with the content 100%. I think it's fascinating though to hear her thoughts. Her thoughts are not objectionable. That is silly.

Do you think that a guest lecturer invited by a university to give a speech should be protected from criticism regarding the content of their speech or their publicly expressed views?

I think a guest lecturer is catering their lecture to an audience in a relevant, qualified profession and so outside that domain, their terminology and content can easily be taken out of context. Take for example the word "fantasy" and how it has a looser clinical meaning. As such, it puts the university in an awkward position of how to protect lecturers from an uninformed public with memes and twitter mobs but where the university still has a value of transparency.

Do you think that publicly expressed sentiments should be viewed as having bearing on a person's ability to objectively and fairly do their job?

I do not think the translation FROM what is said to a professional audience TO public understanding, memes, cherry-picking and quote-mining ought to be used to take away someone's job. On the other hand, if peer professionals from the lecture take issue and follow up with a board, that is another matter.

Do you believe that Khilanani's expressed views regarding white people could be seen as a barrier to her ability to treat white patients?

"White" people were allegedly giving her ptsd-like stress which caused her to cut herself off from them. So under her highest levels of stress she separated herself from that dilemma.
 
Not in this specific case. It's a lecture for credit and so there should be a qualified speaker and a pre-approved topic that makes sense in light of what the credits are applied to.



In this case it should have some relevancy.

Do you agree with the content of the speech given by Khilanani and think there is nothing objectionable in it?

I do not agree with the content 100%. I think it's fascinating though to hear her thoughts. Her thoughts are not objectionable. That is silly.

Do you think that a guest lecturer invited by a university to give a speech should be protected from criticism regarding the content of their speech or their publicly expressed views?

I think a guest lecturer is catering their lecture to an audience in a relevant, qualified profession and so outside that domain, their terminology and content can easily be taken out of context. Take for example the word "fantasy" and how it has a looser clinical meaning. As such, it puts the university in an awkward position of how to protect lecturers from an uninformed public with memes and twitter mobs but where the university still has a value of transparency.

Do you think that publicly expressed sentiments should be viewed as having bearing on a person's ability to objectively and fairly do their job?

I do not think the translation FROM what is said to a professional audience TO public understanding, memes, cherry-picking and quote-mining ought to be used to take away someone's job. On the other hand, if peer professionals from the lecture take issue and follow up with a board, that is another matter.

Do you believe that Khilanani's expressed views regarding white people could be seen as a barrier to her ability to treat white patients?

"White" people were allegedly giving her ptsd-like stress which caused her to cut herself off from them. So under her highest levels of stress she separated herself from that dilemma.

Thank you for responding.

Regarding this:

I do not think the translation FROM what is said to a professional audience TO public understanding, memes, cherry-picking and quote-mining ought to be used to take away someone's job.

Are you limiting that very specifically and exclusively to professional language given to professional audiences? Does it extend to other situations where a person's statements might be taken out of context or misinterpreted and are used to deprive that person of their job?
 
Not in this specific case. It's a lecture for credit and so there should be a qualified speaker and a pre-approved topic that makes sense in light of what the credits are applied to.



In this case it should have some relevancy.



I do not agree with the content 100%. I think it's fascinating though to hear her thoughts. Her thoughts are not objectionable. That is silly.



I think a guest lecturer is catering their lecture to an audience in a relevant, qualified profession and so outside that domain, their terminology and content can easily be taken out of context. Take for example the word "fantasy" and how it has a looser clinical meaning. As such, it puts the university in an awkward position of how to protect lecturers from an uninformed public with memes and twitter mobs but where the university still has a value of transparency.

Do you think that publicly expressed sentiments should be viewed as having bearing on a person's ability to objectively and fairly do their job?

I do not think the translation FROM what is said to a professional audience TO public understanding, memes, cherry-picking and quote-mining ought to be used to take away someone's job. On the other hand, if peer professionals from the lecture take issue and follow up with a board, that is another matter.

Do you believe that Khilanani's expressed views regarding white people could be seen as a barrier to her ability to treat white patients?

"White" people were allegedly giving her ptsd-like stress which caused her to cut herself off from them. So under her highest levels of stress she separated herself from that dilemma.

Thank you for responding.

Regarding this:

I do not think the translation FROM what is said to a professional audience TO public understanding, memes, cherry-picking and quote-mining ought to be used to take away someone's job.

Are you limiting that very specifically and exclusively to professional language given to professional audiences? Does it extend to other situations where a person's statements might be taken out of context or misinterpreted and are used to deprive that person of their job?

Not exactly, but these two things are twiced removed. There is an expectation of not having a wide audience, even if recorded. AND the lecturer is using professional terminology.

I'm not sure I am answering your question?
 
Well, I’m not conservative so, no.

I ask because I actually think that conservatives are psychologically healthier.

Interesting.

They are more in touch with their anger and negative feelings. They can articulate it. They can say it, they’re not covering it up or like “Oh my god, I’m amazing, I love all people.” There's not all this liberal fluff of goodness. Conservatives can go there. They can say things that are uncomfortable that I think liberals would shirk at or move away from or deny.

I would feel more comfortable hanging out with Ann Coulter than a lot of liberals because she’s unlikely to do anything. She’s in contact with her anger and her hatred, and I think that needs to be worked through, don't get me wrong, for the country to heal, but she's actually in contact with those feelings that a lot of people can't say out loud and that's a safer space. Now do I agree with her? No. But liberals have no access to that at all. The thought is forbidden.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you think liberals would be healthier if they expressed racism.

Absolutely. Well, not racism, because racism is an action. Racism occurs in a couple situations: when you are unaware of aspects of your unconscious, then it will come out in the form of an action. So if you are not aware of your own hatred and rage, it’s going to come out in an action if the feeling is not metabolized. For people who can say that they hate something and work through that feeling, then there’s more hope there. That’s where the work really needs to happen. I can’t really help the liberal who says, “There’s no problem here.” I can't do that much with that person. This country doesn't really give white people the tools to deal with their negative feelings.
I can't help but feel this person is utterly hopeless. "If the feeling (hatred) is not metabolized"? She is abusing presumption and trying to dangle psychoanalysis to cover her tracks, forcing a person to prove a negative. She pulls at strings that start with truth, but then knits it into her own image/agenda.

I'd rather hang out with Coulter. Yeah, this person is completely hopeless. Coulter isn't a racist, she is an antagonist... for pay. This person is crappy at psychoanalysis if she can't even see that.
 
I can't help but feel this person is utterly hopeless. "If the feeling (hatred) is not metabolized"? She is abusing presumption and trying to dangle psychoanalysis to cover her tracks, forcing a person to prove a negative. She pulls at strings that start with truth, but then knits it into her own image/agenda.

I'd rather hang out with Coulter. Yeah, this person is completely hopeless. Coulter isn't a racist, she is an antagonist... for pay. This person is crappy at psychoanalysis if she can't even see that.

Welcome aboard!
 
I think it's good studerents are exposed to these lunatics.

Hopefully the exposure to this lunatic isn't a bullet to a white student's head.

I think this line of reasoning is about as crazy as her racism.

Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

We create atheists by exposing people to the Bible. We create anti racists by exposing people to Mein Kampf. By following crazy ideas to their logical conclusion and exploring them fully is how we defend ourselves against crazy ideas.

Which, partly, is, the point of universities.

Humans aren't empty recepticles easily brainwashed by a drop of tainted knowledge.

Just like you become a better lover by being exposed to a multitude of dodgy lovers, you become a better thinker by being exposed to a multitude of dodgy beliefs. Anybody ever only exposed to one monolithic belief will be an idiot. Just like a person who only ever has had one partner will be useless in bed.
 
Last edited:
I think it's good studerents are exposed to these lunatics.

Hopefully the exposure to this lunatic isn't a bullet to a white student's head.

I think this line of reasoning is about as crazy as her racism.

Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

We create atheists by exposing people to the Bible. We create anti racists by exposing people to Mein Kampf. By following crazy ideas to their logical conclusion and exploring them fully is how we defend ourselves against crazy ideas.

Which, partly, is, the point of universities.

Humans aren't empty recepticles easily brainwashed by a drop of tainted knowledge.

Just like you become a better lover by being exposed to a multitude of dodgy lovers, you become a better thinker by being exposed to a multitude of dodgy beliefs. Anybody ever only exposed to one monolithic belief will be an idiot. Just like a person who only ever has had one partner will be useless in bed.

If my grandfather was alive and read this he'd probably say something like "tell child soldiers this fairytale". Plenty of adults are easily influenced into doing stuff they wouldn't do under different circumstances. It's the anthem of the human condition. I do agree that Tswizzle's comment was hyperbolic but it's not unimaginable either.
 
I think it's good studerents are exposed to these lunatics.

Hopefully the exposure to this lunatic isn't a bullet to a white student's head.

I think this line of reasoning is about as crazy as her racism.

Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

We create atheists by exposing people to the Bible. We create anti racists by exposing people to Mein Kampf. By following crazy ideas to their logical conclusion and exploring them fully is how we defend ourselves against crazy ideas.

Which, partly, is, the point of universities.
I don't remember having enough time in college to waste on BS.

Okay students, today and the rest of the month, we are going to cover all the incorrect and ridiculous interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Isn't it better to have people on an opposing side of the spectrum that has adequate ideas and an effective manner of getting them across a better use of college time? If I wanted crazy BS, I could have gone to Times Square to have a black supremacist bark at me.
 
I think this line of reasoning is about as crazy as her racism.

Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

We create atheists by exposing people to the Bible. We create anti racists by exposing people to Mein Kampf. By following crazy ideas to their logical conclusion and exploring them fully is how we defend ourselves against crazy ideas.

Which, partly, is, the point of universities.
I don't remember having enough time in college to waste on BS.

Okay students, today and the rest of the month, we are going to cover all the incorrect and ridiculous interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Isn't it better to have people on an opposing side of the spectrum that has adequate ideas and an effective manner of getting them across a better use of college time? If I wanted crazy BS, I could have gone to Times Square to have a black supremacist bark at me.

Intersectionalism is trendy now within academia. Just like Marxism was the in thing in the 1970'ies, or positivism in 1910, Phrenology in 1890. This is just how intellectualism and the evolution of ideas works. Whenever something is in vogue it gets studied and poked and prodded until the ideas are pushed so far we stop getting useful ideas out of it. We got a lot of useful information out of all the three movements I mentioned above. Just not the insights it's proponents at the time thought or had hoped for.

And just to be the devils advocate a bit. Throughout all of history all social analysis was written from the perspective of the majority and dominant culture or dominant social group within that culture. The Marxist (and postmodern and deconstructivist) intellectuals of the 1970'ies and 80'ies tried to reverse this analysis and take the perspective of those downtrodden and disempowered. Until in the 1990'ies some clever feminists pointed out that all these perspectives in practice was the old elite (white middle aged middle class men) navel gazing while imagining life without being privileged, while simultaneously actively blocking anybody not white middle class and man from rising within academia.

This was the birth of fourth wave feminism and intersectionalism. And they tried to reverse the hierarchy. So those at the bottom of the status hierarchy were given a platform at the top of the hierarchy. Which sounds nice in theory. The problem is that this method of finding "talent" competely robs you of any tool with which to sort out the loonies from those previously downtrodden with valuable ideas. Hence we get "Dr Aruna Khilanani".

For all it's evils the previous status hierarchy at least was a hierachy based mostly on merit. There are positives with a conservative hierarchical academic system where it's hard to reach the top.

What I'm seeing now is intersectionalism running it's course, ie down into the ground. I'm sure we will, in true Hegelian fashion we will go back to something resembling the past while keeping whatever positive we learned from the intersectional trend. A synthesis. Whatever that may be. I'm not sure how that will look like. I don't think anybody does. But this fourth wave feminst intersectional nonsense just has to stop. It's intellectual poison.
 
Hopefully the exposure to this lunatic isn't a bullet to a white student's head.

I think this line of reasoning is about as crazy as her racism.

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.

Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

I never said it was inevitable she act out her fantasy.

We create atheists by exposing people to the Bible. We create anti racists by exposing people to Mein Kampf. By following crazy ideas to their logical conclusion and exploring them fully is how we defend ourselves against crazy ideas.

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.
 
This was the birth of fourth wave feminism and intersectionalism. And they tried to reverse the hierarchy. So those at the bottom of the status hierarchy were given a platform at the top of the hierarchy. Which sounds nice in theory. The problem is that this method of finding "talent" competely robs you of any tool with which to sort out the loonies from those previously downtrodden with valuable ideas. Hence we get "Dr Aruna Khilanani".
Haven't there always been Dr. Aruna Khilananis? People always want to fall into the "Exceptionalism of my time" or "Back in the good ole days" fallacies.

The point of going to University is to learn how to think (and solve problems), unless you go to law school and that is about how to blame other people. Having people that clearly aren't thinking speak at schools seems counterintuitive, especially if there are no lenses. Providing them a platform, by using a school's legitimacy is a waste of resources and their school's legitimacy.
 
CANCELLED

Aruna.png

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.
 
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.

Prediction: white supremacists and their sympathizers will continue to claim that she faced no reprecussions, and even that the school endorsed her ideas, in perpetuity.
 
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.

Prediction: white supremacists and their sympathizers will continue to claim that she faced no reprecussions, and even that the school endorsed her ideas, in perpetuity.

Yes, right wingers in the US would prefer to see all institutes of higher learning closed permanently.
Educated people not only make them look bad, but also threaten the minority rule to which they have become accustomed.
 
Prediction: white supremacists and their sympathizers will continue to claim that she faced no reprecussions, and even that the school endorsed her ideas, in perpetuity.

Yes, right wingers in the US would prefer to see all institutes of higher learning closed permanently.
Educated people not only make them look bad, but also threaten the minority rule to which they have become accustomed.

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.
 
Why would being exposed to an idea inevitably lead to the worst possible outcome?

Rational liberal-minded people understand that it doesn't. But there are a LOT of illiberal people out there, even though many of them consider themselves to be "liberals". Some people are up in arms about Critical Race Theory being taught in universities. Other people object to Gender Critical Feminist ideas being taught in universities.

I consider all of those people to be illiberal.
 
Back
Top Bottom