The ways left wing professors make all students feel welcome*

[pood]

Also, I have not read all his work. You quoted “original sin” of whiteness. Does he actually use that phrase?

Of course he does not. That is my characterisation of his secular religion.

Since you were wrong about him advocating that white people kill themselves, I can’t trust anything you say. Please provide a cite.

No, I was not wrong. He said the literal words.

LOL. "I can't trust anything you say". The tweets themselves were there in the OP. He did not deny making the tweets. He denied a literal interpretation of his words.

The tweet you quoted says NOTHING about white people killing themselves.

 

[Metaphor]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

The plain fact is he does not advocate white people killing themselves. Intentionally or not, you disseminated a falsehood.

I did not. He wrote what he wrote. That is not a falsehood.

But it's interesting that you appear to believe that somebody who thinks white people-all white people--are complicit in and still culpable for slavery and that he has suggested, as a rhetorical device, should commit suicide--isn't really creating a hostile environment for white students.

Or do you agree that his beliefs and his rhetoric would, in fact, create a hostile environment for some white students (not hostile, of course, for the Good White Men).

This is now ridiculous. He DID NOT advocate white people killing himself. I gave you the link in which he explained this. Did you read it?

Yes, I read the link. He did not mean the words literally, but as provocation. I get it.

Oh, wait … now he suggested it as a rhetorical device? Bactracking, are we? Unable to admit you are wrong?

Of course he used it as a rhetorical device. He says so in his explainer.

I am not wrong about the words he used. They are in his tweet. He said white people should kill themselves.

However, I will revise my previous statement. I would not feel comfortable in the class of a man who wrote in a tweet that white people should kill themselves, given the context of his other expressed feelings about white people.

Also, you have no idea what I believe, or even “appear to believe.” My questions were very specific: Does he, or does he not, adovcate white people killing themselves? Answer: He does not. Your claim is refuted.

According to the literal definition of advocate, he did

verb (used with object), ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing.
to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

The definition of 'advocate' does not require 'sincerity'.

Second question. Does he, or does he not, refer to whiteness as an “original sim“? If so, please provide the exact quote, with context. Thanks.

I never claimed he did.

 

[Metaphor]

BTW, if you think that only left-wing professors can be asshats to students, you are hopelessly biased.

I did not say it and I don't believe it.

Next.

 

[pood]

The phrase “origingal sin” is often used to talk about America’s complicity in slavery. To say that America has an “original sin” with respect to slavery (and the use here is clearly metaphorical, not religious) is NOT to say that whiteness is an “original sin.” The meanings are quite different. Did he, or did he not, say that “whiteness is the original sin”?

I don't know if he did or not. I did not claim he did.

Oh, no? You wrote:

His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

So now you admit you imputed to him something he never said.

 

[Metaphor]

The tweet you quoted says NOTHING about white people killing themselves.

There were two (or more) tweets. IN response to the original tweet, somebody asked what white people should do next. He wrote 'commit suicide'.

It's in the OP. Please read it.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, if you think that only left-wing professors can be asshats to students, you are hopelessly biased.

I did not say it and I don't believe it.

Next.

I see. Instead of making a general observation, you felt the need to mimic a reactionary asshat to focus on "left wing" professors.

 

[Metaphor]

So now you admit you imputed to him something he never said.

I neither admit to doing that, nor did I do that.

I have explained my use of the analogy of 'original sin', borrowed from Catholicism. I have used this analogy before. I did not impute any words to the professor.

 

[Metaphor]

BTW, if you think that only left-wing professors can be asshats to students, you are hopelessly biased.

I did not say it and I don't believe it.

Next.

I see. Instead of making a general observation, you felt the need to mimic a reactionary asshat to focus on "left wing" professors.

I don't know who you think the 'reactionary asshat' is, but the site itself also catalogues some right wing professors, such as one who is a holocaust denier.

However, the number of left-wing professors heavily outweighs the number of right-wing professors.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

I've already stipulated that extreme "wokeism" is a pernicious trend helping to destroy America.

But so is anti-wokeism. With real problems facing America and the world, it is a tragedy that extremists of both ilks insist on whingeing about trivia, playing their mis-tuned fiddles like Nero, while the country burns.

So, I'll recognize that there are some absolutely god-worshippingly silly things believed by some loonies on the left.

I wonder how closely I would qualify in your estimation of what is "woke", even so. I think that it's rude and unnecessary to the point where I'm not going to be someone's friend if they're going about calling for support of shit like taking peoples children away for supporting transitional gender care, or limiting the right to travel of women, or enslaving people rather than actually helping them be better people.

Maybe it's just that I've found myself consistently playing The Queer in this slow Nazification of the right.

I really don't think the Churches preaching about Lizard People and taking forcible control of the government are really going to play nice with "the papists", either.

I'm just... At a loss. People are insulated by a wall of yellow journalism on every side, papered on every surface, and there's no way through that evil Paper Mache.

All I can hope is that we can get out by January.

 

[pood]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

The plain fact is he does not advocate white people killing themselves. Intentionally or not, you disseminated a falsehood.

I did not. He wrote what he wrote. That is not a falsehood.

But it's interesting that you appear to believe that somebody who thinks white people-all white people--are complicit in and still culpable for slavery and that he has suggested, as a rhetorical device, should commit suicide--isn't really creating a hostile environment for white students.

Or do you agree that his beliefs and his rhetoric would, in fact, create a hostile environment for some white students (not hostile, of course, for the Good White Men).

This is now ridiculous. He DID NOT advocate white people killing himself. I gave you the link in which he explained this. Did you read it?

Yes, I read the link. He did not mean the words literally, but as provocation. I get it.

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves. You NEVER said it was only a ”rhetorical device” until I called you out with the facts. Just as I have called out your bullshit that he said “whiteness is an original sin.” He never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know who you think the 'reactionary asshat' is, but the site itself also catalogues some right wing professors, such as one who is a holocaust denier.

However, the number of left-wing professors heavily outweighs the number of right-wing professors.

Only because you choose a reactionary asshat site. Between choosing such a biased site, "misinterpreting" what someone wrote (a common "error" in your arguments), and doubling down in defending such intellectual "sloppiness", your OP is providing even more unintended evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

You NEVER said it was only a ”rhetorical device” until I called you out with the facts. Just as I have called out your bullshit that he said “whiteness is an original sin.” He never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

I never said he said that. You are promulgating a falsehood. Stop.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know who you think the 'reactionary asshat' is, but the site itself also catalogues some right wing professors, such as one who is a holocaust denier.

However, the number of left-wing professors heavily outweighs the number of right-wing professors.

Only because you choose a reactionary asshat site. Between choosing such a biased site, "misinterpreting" what someone wrote (a common "error" in your arguments), and doubling down in defending such intellectual "sloppiness", your OP is providing even more unintended evidence.

No, because the left heavily outweighs the right in US academia.

 

[laughing dog]

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

As a hyperbolic statement to provoke someone. He did not mean it (as pood's link indicates). Of all people, you should appreciate the use of such rhetorical devices.

So, it is intellectually dishonest to portray that jerk as actually meaning white people should kill themselves.

 

[pood]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

Wait. WHAT? You just admitted it was a “rhetorical device” and not intended literally. Not you’re saying he literally did exactly that? Can you try to keep your cockamamie bullshit stories straight, please?

 

[laughing dog]

No, because the left heavily outweighs the right in US academia.

That is your opinion. But it does not rebut anything I wrote. Whether or not "the left heavily outweighs the right in US academia" does not justify your misinterpretation.

 

[pood]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

You NEVER said it was only a ”rhetorical device” until I called you out with the facts. Just as I have called out your bullshit that he said “whiteness is an original sin.” He never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

I never said he said that. You are promulgating a falsehood. Stop.

YOU wrote this:

His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

You imputed to him the claim that whiteness is an original sin. Now you admit that he never said this. Stop digging.

 

[Metaphor]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

As a hyperbolic statement to provoke someone. He did not mean it (as pood's link indicates). Of all people, you should appreciate the use of such rhetorical devices.

So, it is intellectually dishonest to portray that jerk as actually meaning white people should kill themselves.

That he later claimed his statement was insincere is not relevant. He literally and exactly advocated that white people should kill themselves.

Now, here's a difference between the good professor and me. I could write a provocation piece entitled 'white people should kill themselves' (in fact, I have started drafts of such an essay), and I could literally advocate it (as in make a public suggestion that white people should kill themselves). But of course, the essay itself would show that I did not actually mean that; that the essay is instead an attack on the Woke left (and/or pacifists like Gandhi) who hate white people and wish them to suffer legal and social disadvantage. And even if the essay failed rhetorically and people thought I was advocating the mass suicide of white people, an acquaintance with other things I've written would surely extinguish that perception.

But when a man like Kotsko writes that white people should commit suicide for their complicity in slavery, it is not clear he does not mean it literally. And, even though he later claimed he was provoked into making a provocative response, Kotsko advocating that white people kill themselves is a materially different event than myself or an ordinary non-deranged not-anti-white person doing it.

 

[Metaphor]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

Wait. WHAT? You just admitted it was a “rhetorical device” and not intended literally. Not you’re saying he literally did exactly that? Can you try to keep your cockamamie bullshit stories straight, please?

He literally advocated for whites to commit suicide. It is a historical event. It is not ambiguous. I don't mean he figuratively advocated for whites to commit suicide, like he built an effigy that he burned or something. He advocated that white people should commit suicide. Those were his literal words. Kotkso fulfilled the dictionary definition of advocating by making a public statement advocating something.

The definition of 'advocating' does not require the statement be sincere.

 

[Metaphor]

You get it? But this is not what you have been saying. You have said that the professor advocates white people killing themselves.

HE DID. HE LITERALLY DID EXACTLY THAT.

You NEVER said it was only a ”rhetorical device” until I called you out with the facts. Just as I have called out your bullshit that he said “whiteness is an original sin.” He never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

I never said he said that. You are promulgating a falsehood. Stop.

YOU wrote this:

His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

You imputed to him the claim that whiteness is an original sin. Now you admit that he never said this. Stop digging.

No, I did not. I never said he said that nor that he would understand his beliefs as such.

I do not 'admit' he never said it, because that implies I made a claim he said it. I made no such claim. Stop.