link (https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white)
QuoteHere are some of the quotes from the lecture:
This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)
I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)
White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time. (Time stamp: 17:06)
We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea. (Time stamp 17:13)
We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask. (Time stamp 17:54)
Oh.
"The left, whom you identify with, are populated and led by complete psychos."
"Oh."
First and foremost, unacceptable behavior and she should be immediately terminated from her professorship at Yale.
Only problem is it's going to be extremely hard for Yale to fire her as a professor, since she isn't a professor as you stated.
QuoteIn the online lecture, on April 6, the psychiatrist, Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who has a private practice in New York and is not affiliated with Yale...
Yale, upon discovering this, immediately removed her lectures and barred her from doing guest online lectures with them again, and from admin to professors her behavior was condemned. Convenient how that bit was left out.
She was punished, which is what "ThE lEfT" do to people who break the rules... unlike the right, who give them prime-time guest slots, lucrative book deals and a cozy job grifting for millions.
I also think NYC should look into revoking her license for her to practice, and I'm probably the most "left" here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/nyregion/yale-psychiatrist-aruna-khilanani.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/nyregion/yale-psychiatrist-aruna-khilanani.html)
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 03:26:02 PM
"The left, whom you identify with, are populated and led by complete psychos."
"Oh."
The Right find one example of extreme behavior on the part of people on the Left, and they think that brings the whole house of cards down. You don't think there have been any cases of extreme behavior from the Right, moron?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 03:26:02 PM
"The left, whom you identify with, are populated and led by complete psychos."
"Oh."
Wat?
Also, are professors our leaders now? First I've even heard of this Dr. Aruna Khilanani, but apparently, they represent me. Interesting.
Arch warmonger, do you think Dr. Khilanani should be canceled by the Left or should the Left honor freedom of speech?
If they honor her freedom of speech, they should also allow Richard Spencer and similar types. If they allow the first but not the latter then they're just a mouthpiece for the far left and its insanity.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 05:52:00 PM
If they honor her freedom of speech, they should also allow Richard Spencer and similar types. If they allow the first but not the latter then they're just a mouthpiece for the far left and its insanity.
Yale is a private institution, they have no obligation to honor her freedom of speech, nor anyone else.
And given they didn't honor it by cancelling her, then this "mouthpiece for the far left insanity" jazz your spewing really just seems to be wishful thinking.
Can an institution that receives over half a billion dollars a year in federal grants truly be called private? (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/federal-subsidies-of-yale-undercut-national-security-and-education) Institutions that disregard the 1st amendment shouldn't be allowed any kind of federal money. And even if they stand for freedom of speech now, who's to say that the next generation of activists-cum-administrators won't change their policies? The decline in support for freedom of speech is generational and shows no sign of reversal. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/)
QuoteCan an institution that receives over half a billion dollars a year in federal grants truly be called private?
Yes, because that's not what private vs public means.
QuoteInstitutions that disregard the 1st amendment shouldn't be allowed any kind of federal money.
And people who don't know what the first amendment does and doesn't protect shouldn't bother themselves with feigned outrage, but here we are.
The line has been getting blurrier since FDR took office, regardless, federal money especially in education should be contingent on such things.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 07:46:36 PM
The line has been getting blurrier since FDR took office, regardless, federal money especially in education should be contingent on such things.
Why should federal money be contingent on private industry exercising their recognized rights only in ways you agree with?
Wouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment? How much do you care about the First Amendment?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 09:31:15 PM
Wouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment? How much do you care about the First Amendment?
Speaking of "free speech," how does this image make you feel?
(https://www.blackenterprise.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2020/06/colin-Kaepernick-kneeling.jpg)
There is a trailer park other side of town full of old dumbass MAGA/Q/Trumpers living on FDR's Social Security and Medicare. Otherwise they barely have a nickel. How fucking clueless can you get? They are the ones with confederate flags our front, bought them with their government check.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 06, 2021, 10:09:47 PM
Speaking of "free speech," how does this image make you feel?
(https://www.blackenterprise.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2020/06/colin-Kaepernick-kneeling.jpg)
The First Amendment is very short. It reads:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
For more detail see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
It seems to me that Kaepernick was using his First amendment rights to freedom of speech, the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances. The orange monster didn't like it, which is not surprising because he doesn't know nor care what the constitution says.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 09:31:15 PM
Wouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment? How much do you care about the First Amendment?
Strawman + Red Herring.
Yale did not violate anyone's First Amendment rights, ergo providing Yale with government money is not in any way funding violations of the First Amendment.
Clearly I care about it more than you do, since only one of us appears to have actually read it. It is in the very first line; "Congress shale make no law..". Congress, not private enterprise.
QuoteConstitutional scholar and Lincoln Memorial University law professor Stewart Harris confirmed employers can generally fire workers over posts they make on personal social media accounts.
“The First Amendment does protect our right to free speech,†said Harris. “But it only protects us against the government. If there’s a private employer involved and a private employee, there is no First Amendment protection. So the only question would become a matter of labor law, under which employers are generally allowed to fire people for just about any reason.â€
https://www.wjhl.com/news/local/can-employers-fire-workers-for-offensive-social-media-posts/#:~:text=Constitutional%20scholar%20and%20Lincoln%20Memorial%20University%20law%20professor,%E2%80%9CBut%20it%20only%20protects%20us%20against%20the%20government (https://www.wjhl.com/news/local/can-employers-fire-workers-for-offensive-social-media-posts/#:~:text=Constitutional%20scholar%20and%20Lincoln%20Memorial%20University%20law%20professor,%E2%80%9CBut%20it%20only%20protects%20us%20against%20the%20government).
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 06, 2021, 10:40:16 PM
It seems to me that Kaepernick was using his First amendment rights to freedom of speech, the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances. The orange monster didn't like it, which is not surprising because he doesn't know nor care what the constitution says.
I think this is an important point; as much as I utterly disagree with the NFL's decision and believe it was a massively immoral and wrong one, I don't believe they violated the First Amendment. What they did was legally okay, even if by every other metric it was wrong.
However when Trump thought it should be banned, that was a violation of the First Amendment.
Interestingly, I believe one of the Supreme Court rulings actually says that states have the authority to restrict freedom of speech; it is only the federal government, not state, that is beholden to the 1st. I would be interested to see if they would rule that since it says Congress that that Executive branch also has the right to limit free speech... though I hope we never reach a point where that actually needs to go to the SC.
Here in Texas we have recently passed a law that makes it illegal for teams to not sing the "Star Spangled Banner" before games, and apparently it is constitutional.
The US government is financing Yale and every other university in America. That makes the US government partly to blame for any abridgments of freedom of speech and anything else they do, especially as a direct result of regulatory compliance and other factors. Yes, the 1st amendment regulates the government, and US government funding is a huge part of why the US university system is as big as it is.
Also, sports aren't federally funded. They're state/locally funded, although I would say they shouldn't be.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 06, 2021, 11:10:18 PM
The US government is financing Yale and every other university in America. That makes the US government partly to blame for any abridgments of freedom of speech and anything else they do...
Which, again, did not happen so you are crying over imaginary spilt milk.
What do you even mean by that? The government's financing every college in America, Yale gets like 12% of its yearly budget from government funding, how stupid would I have to be to fall for such weak obfuscation?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 12:35:40 AM
What do you even mean by that? The government's financing every college in America, Yale gets like 12% of its yearly budget from government funding, how stupid would I have to be to fall for such weak obfuscation?
Let's see if third times a charm.
1. The 1st Amendment prevents Congress from passing any laws that infringe on free speech.
2. This only applies to Congress; even States are granted the right to limit free speech because the Supreme Court has decided that the 1st amendment literally means only Congress.
3. Yale is a private institution; it's employees are not elected officials or government appointees but rather privately hired citizens who answer to shareholders instead of elected officials. Additionally Yale never made any attempt to pass any laws.
Now, given that 1 and 2 are correct both as cited from Constitutional scholar Stewart Harris above and by basic common sense, then 3 means that Yale logically cannot be violating the First Amendment; they are not Congress, they are not a subsidiary of Congress, they are not passing legislation.
Which part is it you are disagreeing with?
If step 1, I invite you to read the First Amendment.
If step 2, then I invite you to read the citation of Harris' or look into the National Labor Relations Act; it is the only real federal legislation regarding what companies can and cant prohibit you from saying and it only protects your right to discuss your working conditions.
If step 3, then either you need to look up what private vs public sector means or look into the fact that Yale is not, infact, a branch of Congress.
So how is the government not violating the 1st amendment by financing colleges who violate the 1st amendment? If I hire an assassin to kill somebody I'm still culpable for murder even if I didn't pull the trigger.
I think you're attacking a point I didn't attempt to make, my focus pretty much since 10 posts back has been on government malfeasance in financing organizations that suppress speech.
QuoteWouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment? How much do you care about the First Amendment?
What's that one logical fallacy from that one list that 105 IQ nerds like to use to seem smart? Oh right, the "straw man fallacy".
QuoteSo how is the government not violating the 1st amendment by financing colleges who violate the 1st amendment?
*Sigh*
In what way did Yale violate Khilalani's First Amendment rights?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 01:18:50 AM
I think you're attacking a point I didn't attempt to make, my focus pretty much since 10 posts back has been on government malfeasance in financing organizations that suppress speech.
QuoteWouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment? How much do you care about the First Amendment?
What's that one logical fallacy from that one list that 105 IQ nerds like to use to seem smart? Oh right, the "straw man fallacy".
Cite me an example where Yale violated Khilalani's First Amendment rights.
Again, try to keep up, my main point the US government is breaking the 1st amendment by directly financing censorious institutions. But I stand by my assertion that Yale is only partly a "private" institution due to the amount of government funding it gets, which does and should create confusion.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 01:44:03 AM
Again, try to keep up, my main point the US government is breaking the 1st amendment by directly financing censorious institutions.
The First Amendment does not protect you from "censorious institutions"; it protects you from Congress passing legislation that prevents your right to free speech.
Give me a specific example where Yale violated the First Amendment.
I've been "caught up" with your position this entire time, it's you who doesn't understand the stipulations of the First Amendment, to which I have posted quotes from a Congressional Scholar explaining how it doesn't apply in this situation as well as Federal legislation that addresses what free speech a private entity is or isn't allow to censor you on.
QuoteBut I stand by my assertion that Yale is only partly a "private" institution due to the amount of government funding it gets.
I can assert that fire is cold, but that doesn't make it true. Yale is, by definition, a private institution; that is not my opinion, that's not my feelings, that is literally what it is... and even if it was a government institution, so long as it was not a Congress-funded organization that was attempting to pass legislation to limit free speech the First Amendment does not apply to it.
You are free to have your own opinions of what the First Amendment may or may not *really* mean, but at the end of the day the Supreme Court has never found your position to be accurate (both Progressive and Conservative S.C.s) nor do constitutional scholars.
I think you're talking past me and attacking points I didn't make.
QuoteThe First Amendment does not protect you from "censorious institutions"; it protects you from Congress passing legislation that prevents your right to free speech.
Yes, and Congress financing organizations that promote censorship is preventing the right to free speech.
QuoteI've been "caught up" with your position this entire time, it's you who doesn't understand the stipulations of the First Amendment, to which I have posted quotes from a Congressional Scholar explaining how it doesn't apply in this situation as well as Federal legislation that addresses what free speech a private entity is or isn't allow to censor you on.
I'm disputing Congress's right to finance such institutions.
If you don't understand this then I really give up. I can't break down my argument any further.
QuoteInstitutions that disregard the 1st amendment shouldn't be allowed any kind of federal money.
Sound familiar?
QuoteWouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment?
This you?
Yes, i agree, they shouldn't be allowed federal money because empowering such institutions would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Congress would be the ones providing the financing for these institutions and thus they would be guilty of violating the 1st amendment.
Are you just playing dumb to fuck with me?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 01:58:50 AM
Yes, i agree, they shouldn't be allowed federal money because empowering such institutions would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
So Yale is passing legislation?
No, Congress passed legislation that enables other entities to block freedom of speech, thereby making Congress guilty of suppressing speech. Are you fucking lobotomized or something?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 02:01:47 AM
No, Congress passed legislation that enables other entities to block freedom of speech, thereby making Congress guilty of suppressing speech. Are you fucking lobotomized or something?
Freedom of speech under a private entity is not and has never been protected by the First Amendment.
They didn't "pass legislation" allowing Yale to do this; there has literally never been legislation telling them they couldn't.
Ergo Congress took no steps to violate freedom of speech, nor did they take any steps to allow others to violate your free speech; it's literally the system working the way it always has since day one.
To finance such institutions is to enable them. What don't you get?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 02:06:24 AM
To finance such institutions is to enable them. What don't you get?
The First Amendment doesn't say anything about that, my friend.
The First Amendment:
QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress, in funding Yale, does not enact or redact any laws that violate the people's right to free speech; ergo Congress is not violating anyone's right to free speech as Yale is a private, not public, institution.
Unless Yale was to convert to a public institution, under jurisdiction of Congress, the First Amendment does not apply to any of their actions; even if they were 99% funded by Congress.
And since they aren't passing laws, I don't believe the Supreme Court would rule in favor of your position even in that hypothetical.
If Conservatives want to be the party of "Constitutional Purism", then they have to sleep in that bed they made when it doesn't always work out in their favor.
I'm not your "friend".
I'm not interested in Yale's culpability here, ultimately.
And to create or empower an institution to suppress free speech is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Just to reiterate, if you hire somebody to do something bad, then you're culpable for their actions. If you don't anything to say other than to just stonewall me like an imbecile I don't want to hear it.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 02:13:04 AM
I'm not your "friend". And to create or empower an institution to suppress free speech is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Just to reiterate, if you hire somebody to do something bad, then you're culpable for their actions. If you don't anything to say other than to just stonewall me like an imbecile I don't want to hear it.
Firstly, the example would be more if you hired someone to do a job, and in the process of it they did something bad, you are culpable for their actions; AFAIK Congress is not intentionally spending money on Yale just to silence people's free speech.
Secondly, Yale did not break any laws in silencing her, so even under the assumption Congress specifically funded Yale just to silence opinions they don't like... it was legal under both State and Federal law, and there have never been laws stating it to be illegal since the foundation of this nation.
If that hypothetical was in fact the truth then I myself would have issues with it, but it's not.
At this point the part that colleges play in silencing free speech is so obvious that only an idiot or a shill would deny it. For Congress to continue supporting institutions that do this would be a violation.
So just to make sure we are on the same page, so far I have quoted to support my position...
- A Constitutional Scholar
- Federal Legislation on What Is and Isn't Prohibited for Private Entities to Censor
- The First Amendment
And you have cited... your feelings.
And as a famous conservative once said... "Facts don't care about your feelings.".
You've quoted things that are completely irrelevant to my point. My going hypothesis is that you're banking on the other people on this forum being too stupid to notice that.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 02:26:46 AM
You've quoted things that are completely irrelevant to my point.
In-so-far as the First Amendment actually was irrelevant to your point, even if you kept on pretending it was relevant, I will applaud that you finally said something factually true.
Congrats.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 02:26:46 AM
You've quoted things that are completely irrelevant to my point. My going hypothesis is that you're banking on the other people on this forum being too stupid to notice that.
The empty can rattles the loudest.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5cd0yx.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on June 07, 2021, 02:31:16 AM
The empty can rattles the loudest.
LOL look at the self-hating white larping as some wise Chinese dude.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 03:19:42 AM
LOL look at the self-hating white larping as some wise Chinese dude.
Imagine being so ignorant to white culture that you don't realise how big of role idioms play in Southern culture.
Sounds like you are the one who is a little bit racist against white people there, my friend.
Nuh uh, racism is power + prejudice.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 03:19:42 AM
LOL look at the self-hating white larping as some wise Chinese dude.
Oh for the love of Fuck.
It's time we called all these phobias and isms and all this other made-up terminology for what it is: self-important bullshit.