The ways left wing professors make all students feel welcome*

[Metaphor]

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

That is your opinion. But it does not rebut anything I wrote.

Of course it does. You implied I chose a site where left academics were more heavily represented than right academics because of my bias and the bias of the site. But any such site, unless it specifically highlighted only one side on purpose, would have more leftists represented than rightists, because the left heavily outweighs the right in US academia.

 

[laughing dog]

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

He says he was being sarcastic - a defense/justification you routinely employ.

Your justification for your double standard is duly noted.

 

[Metaphor]

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

He says he was being sarcastic - a defense/justification you routinely employ.

I have already explained that sincerity is not part of the definition of 'advocate'. He advocated that white people should kill themselves. There is no ambiguity about that.

Now, I rather suspected he didn't really believe it. If he had, he'd either have killed himself to lead by example, or have spent follow-up time encouraging white people to kill themselves. So, he merely meant the advice as an attack on white people and an expression of his contempt for them.

As such, I would not feel welcome in any class where he was the professor.

 

[laughing dog]

I have already explained that sincerity is not part of the definition of 'advocate'.

I am not going to debate your pathetic pedantic quibbles.

You are denying the defense of "sarcasm" - a justifcation you frequently use defending many of your "sarcastic" remarks. Your double standard is duly noted.

As such, I would not feel welcome in any class where he was the professor.

So what?

 

[Metaphor]

I have already explained that sincerity is not part of the definition of 'advocate'.

I am not going to debate your pathetic pedantic quibbles.

You are denying the defense of "sarcasm" - a justifcation you frequently use defending many of your "sarcastic" remarks. Your double standard is duly noted.

I am denying nothing. I accept he did not really mean it, for the reasons I've already explained.

Nearly every time you are wrong about what words mean, you accuse the other of 'pedantry'. You were wrong about what genocide meant, you were wrong about what 'claim' meant, you were wrong about what 'advocate' means. The only time you ever accepted you were wrong without argument that I recall was over the meaning of 'genocide', which you accepted with good grace.

As such, I would not feel welcome in any class where he was the professor.

So what?

So, he is an example of a professor who would make students feel unwelcome, as per my OP title.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

He's already gotten the trophy.

 

[laughing dog]

I am denying nothing. I accept he did not really mean it, for the reasons I've already explained.

Nearly every time you are wrong about what words mean, you accuse the other of 'pedantry'. You were wrong about what genocide meant, you were wrong about what 'claim' meant, you were wrong about what 'advocate' means. The only time you ever accepted you were wrong without argument that I recall was over the meaning of 'genocide', which you accepted with good grace.

Your sincere belief in all the straw men and "misinterpretations" in your posts does not justify them. Your double standard is glaring.

As such, I would not feel welcome in any class where he was the professor.
So, he is an example of a professor who would make students feel unwelcome, as per my OP title.

No, it shows he is an example of professor who would make you feel unwelcome in class. To extend that "students" in general, you would need to show that the average student is similar to you. In my limited experience, very few US students are either as pedantic or as hypersensitive or as reactionary as you. Of course, my limited experience is not a random sample.

 

[Metaphor]

I am denying nothing. I accept he did not really mean it, for the reasons I've already explained.

Nearly every time you are wrong about what words mean, you accuse the other of 'pedantry'. You were wrong about what genocide meant, you were wrong about what 'claim' meant, you were wrong about what 'advocate' means. The only time you ever accepted you were wrong without argument that I recall was over the meaning of 'genocide', which you accepted with good grace.

Your sincere belief in all the straw men and "misinterpretations" in your posts does not justify them. Your double standard is glaring.

Non-responsive to the content of my post.

As such, I would not feel welcome in any class where he was the professor.
So, he is an example of a professor who would make students feel unwelcome, as per my OP title.

No, it shows he is an example of professor who would make you feel unwelcome in class. To extend that "students" in general, you would need to show that the average student is similar to you. In my limited experience, very few US students are either as pedantic or as hypersensitive or as reactionary as you. Of course, my limited experience is not a random sample.

No, I do not need to show the average student (whatever that means) is similar to me. Indeed, while if would be very bad indeed if the 'average' student was uncomfortable in such a case, it would be no less important than if a particular subgroup of students were uncomfortable, for reasons directly related to the professor's professed viewpoints.

In any case, since you object to collecting such data (given its 'intrusiveness), even on an anonymous and non-compulsory basis, your condition cannot be fulfilled.

 

[Swammerdami]

Metaphor and I align on opposite sides of many political issues. And I am guilty of a poor choice of words — "trivia" — to describe the concerns of both wokeists and anti-wokeists. My objection to the extreme wokeists — who are, I think, a tiny minority — is not their motive (usually compassion) nor their authoritarian bent (unlikely to be implemented in a country that still prides itself on freedom) but on the backlash they cause. Egged on by propaganda sites (Fox or Toilet Paper USA), centrists are likely to reject liberalism due to the divisive views of wokeists.

One can see such divisive views right here on this message board. And one can see liberals sometimes do the very thing they accuse right-wing liars of doing: taking words out of context.

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 used "original sin" as his own, well, metaphor . He could have made clear he wasn't quoting the Professor, but he has since explained that. And the "original sin" metaphor seems quite apt to me as a means to describe the imputations of many wokeists on the topic of historic racism.

Metaphor erred by placing the phrase in quotation marks, but I can sympathize because I have often made the very same mistake myself. (I don't mean on this topic, but rather the use of quotation marks to imply my own phrase is used figuratively rather than to quote an antecedent.)

If I were a centrist undecided about which lever to pull in a polling booth, and met with the abuse Metaphor has met with for his misuse of quotation marks in a single sentence I might very well pull the QOPAnon lever, while thinking "those liberals are dishonest pedants, deliberately twisting my words."

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor and I align on opposite sides of many political issues. And I am guilty of a poor choice of words — "trivia" — to describe the concerns of both wokeists and anti-wokeists. My objection to the extreme wokeists — who are, I think, a tiny minority — is not their motive (usually compassion) nor their authoritarian bent (unlikely to be implemented in a country that still prides itself on freedom) but on the backlash they cause. Egged on by propaganda sites (Fox or Toilet Paper USA), centrists are likely to reject liberalism due to the divisive views of wokeists.

One can see such divisive views right here on this message board. And one can see liberals sometimes do the very thing they accuse right-wing liars of doing: taking words out of context.

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 used "original sin" as his own, well, metaphor . He could have made clear he wasn't quoting the Professor, but he has since explained that. And the "original sin" metaphor seems quite apt to me as a means to describe the imputations of many wokeists on the topic of historic racism.

Metaphor erred by placing the phrase in quotation marks, but I can sympathize because I have often made the very same mistake myself. (I don't mean on this topic, but rather the use of quotation marks to imply my own phrase is used figuratively rather than to quote an antecedent.)

(emphasis mine).

That is exactly what I did--and it is standard usage to put something in inverted commas in a variety of situations--a title of a work, a quote of somebody's words, the usage of a word as figurative or not in its original sense. It is this latter thing that I did: use of the term 'original sin', but rather than as Roman Catholics use and mean it, as an analogy for what the Woke believe and say about white people. Yes, all white people.

But, I would not call it a mistake where you did it or where I did it. I can see that pood seems to either truly believe I was quoting Kotskos, or he knows I was not but is claiming he does, but I explained that quoting Kotskos was not what I was doing.

If I were a centrist undecided about which lever to pull in a polling booth, and met with the abuse Metaphor has met with for his misuse of quotation marks in a single sentence I might very well pull the QOPAnon lever, while thinking "those liberals are dishonest pedants, deliberately twisting my words."

I don't consider it a misuse; it is standard usage. I can see, however, that it has created an ambiguity that I did not intend.

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't consider it a misuse; it is standard usage. I can see, however, that it has created an ambiguity that I did not intend.

You're not wrong. I deliberately chose the over-strong word — "misuse" — hoping to stifle further pedantry.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I do not need to show the average student (whatever that means) is similar to me. Indeed, while if would be very bad indeed if the 'average' student was uncomfortable in such a case, it would be no less important than if a particular subgroup of students were uncomfortable, for reasons directly related to the professor's professed viewpoints.

Sorry, but the alleged fact it would make you feel unwelcome is not evidence it would make anyone else or some subgroup feel unwelcome

In any case, since you object to collecting such data (given its 'intrusiveness), even on an anonymous and non-compulsory basis, your condition cannot be fulfilled.

Never said anything of the sort. But then again, lack of accuracy or veracity has not stopped you before.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I do not need to show the average student (whatever that means) is similar to me. Indeed, while if would be very bad indeed if the 'average' student was uncomfortable in such a case, it would be no less important than if a particular subgroup of students were uncomfortable, for reasons directly related to the professor's professed viewpoints.

Sorry, but the alleged fact it would make you feel unwelcome

Now speaking about my own feelings is an 'alleged' fact? Implying either I am mistaken about my own feelings (which is epistemologically impossible; I cannot be mistaken about what I think I think), or that I am lying about whether I would feel unwelcome.

is not evidence it would make anyone else or some subgroup feel unwelcome

It's true that I might be the only person in the world who would feel unwelcome in a class where the teacher thought some of his students, by dent of their (and my own) ethnicity, was complicit in, and have culpability for, what some people they've never met did to some other people they've never met.

But I suspect more than one person would be uncomfortable in the class of an openly racist professor.

In any case, since you object to collecting such data (given its 'intrusiveness), even on an anonymous and non-compulsory basis, your condition cannot be fulfilled.

Never said anything of the sort. But then again, lack of accuracy or veracity has not stopped you before.

Of course you did. It's in the falsely titled Florida university thread.

 

[Swammerdami]

Trifolium repens (white clover) is a very small three-leafed plant that is now deliberately grown for lawns on several continents. If you spend an hour or two searching through a lawn of Trifolium repens you are likely to find a specimen with four leaves. Suppose you;ve never heard of four-leaf clovers before, do this experiment, and actually discover a four-leaf specimen. Which of the following are you more likely to guess:
(A) Despite that the genus name Trifolium actually means "three leaves", some plants have four leaves.. They may be very rare, but they do exist — you have an "existence proof": you've observed one yourself. (Spend some more hours and you may find one with five leaves!)
(B) By chance you have stumbled upon the only four-leafed clover in the entire world. Like the Saul of Tarsus who allegedly encountered the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus, you stumbled on a creature unique in all the world. (If you picked it, you have destroyed the world's only four-leaf clover.)

Choose your answer before proceeding.
In the sequel I assume you selected (A).

Sorry, but the alleged fact it would make you feel unwelcome is not evidence it would make anyone else or some subgroup feel unwelcome

Review your answer (A) to the question above and see if you would like to compose a less obstinate response.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you did. It's in the falsely titled Florida university thread.

I realize you truly believe your "misinterpretations", but your belief does not make them true. I also realize (and your posting history indicates) that you will not change your "misinterpretations".

 

[TomC]

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.

Is this your admission that the statement I bolded is flat out wrong? That you misinterpreted Metaphor's non-literal rhetoric?

It doesn't look like it. Is it possible that you find your error difficult to admit?


Whether the prof ever used it or not, I have heard the term "original sin" applied to white guilt before. Not the literal reference to religious teachings. The non-literal reference to "guilt inherited at birth due to the behavior of your ancestors". In that sense, it's not particularly inaccurate. Huge amounts of white wealth and power can be traced back to the centuries long rampage of genocide and pillaging generally referred to by the euphemism "colonialism". Lots of white folks prefer not to see that as having anything to do with them personally. Hearing this makes them very uncomfortable.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It includes professors who scream at students for lowering their mask to sneeze; I don't think 'general support of mask mandates' is sufficient to be included in their list (though it might be, I haven't read anything beyond the people who start with A or B, and even that was selective).

Well, duh, they should be yelled at for lowering their mask to sneeze.

That's equivalent to wearing a condom but taking it off just before you shoot.

 

[Metaphor]

It includes professors who scream at students for lowering their mask to sneeze; I don't think 'general support of mask mandates' is sufficient to be included in their list (though it might be, I haven't read anything beyond the people who start with A or B, and even that was selective).

Well, duh, they should be yelled at for lowering their mask to sneeze.

That's equivalent to wearing a condom but taking it off just before you shoot.

Loren, I have less than no interest in discussing mask etiquette with you and it would be entirely off topic.

 

[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.

Is this your admission that the statement I bolded is flat out wrong? That you misinterpreted Metaphor's non-literal rhetoric?

It doesn't look like it. Is it possible that you find your error difficult to admit?


Whether the prof ever used it or not, I have heard the term "original sin" applied to white guilt before. Not the literal reference to religious teachings. The non-literal reference to "guilt inherited at birth due to the behavior of your ancestors". In that sense, it's not particularly inaccurate. Huge amounts of white wealth and power can be traced back to the centuries long rampage of genocide and pillaging generally referred to by the euphemism "colonialism". Lots of white folks prefer not to see that as having anything to do with them personally.

Unless they did the genocide and pillaging themselves, it literally does have nothing to do with them 'personally'.

Hearing this makes them very uncomfortable.

I am not made "uncomfortable" by the deranged catechism of "whiteness", any more than I know or care what people believe in any religion as long as they don't force me to attend services or force me to alter my life in some other way to cater to their beliefs.

Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It includes professors who scream at students for lowering their mask to sneeze; I don't think 'general support of mask mandates' is sufficient to be included in their list (though it might be, I haven't read anything beyond the people who start with A or B, and even that was selective).

Well, duh, they should be yelled at for lowering their mask to sneeze.

That's equivalent to wearing a condom but taking it off just before you shoot.

Loren, I have less than no interest in discussing mask etiquette with you and it would be entirely off topic.

The point is you attacked them as nuts for something that is completely sensible.