Goodbye.
Advertisement

by Parhe » Sat May 16, 2015 11:35 pm
Katganistan wrote:Saiwania wrote:
How it that impossible? Do you not get that since 1950 Whites have declined from 15% of global population to only about 8% by 2010 and will be down to 6% or less by 2100? If there is a 2% or greater decline every 50 to 100 years, it is clear to me that White skin is completely going away.
And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.

by Republic of Coldwater » Sat May 16, 2015 11:35 pm

by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Sat May 16, 2015 11:37 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:To some extent, that is true, but I'm not trying to imply that the success of the civil rights movement was entirely based off the help of whites. What I was trying to say was that whites were great benefactors to the Civil Rights Movement, and without them, achieving civil rights would've been harder, not impossible.

by Republic of Coldwater » Sat May 16, 2015 11:40 pm

by Katganistan » Sat May 16, 2015 11:45 pm
Avaerilon wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote:Her comments were both racist and sexist. This does not mean that she should be fired; and she has apologized.
If she is to be fired (or, more likely, not granted tenure), it should be on the basis of the quality of her teaching and/or research. If she is racist or sexist in how she grades students; if she selectively harasses white males to make them feel unwelcome in her classroom; etc - all those can and should be treated as reasons not to keep her around.
The people rallying in support of her to say that her statements were neither racist nor sexist, however, are demonstrating themselves to be racist and sexist, and are part of a problematic discourse.)
^This. I don't really think there's anything more to be said, frankly.

by Republic of Coldwater » Sat May 16, 2015 11:47 pm
Katganistan wrote:Saiwania wrote:
How it that impossible? Do you not get that since 1950 Whites have declined from 15% of global population to only about 8% by 2010 and will be down to 6% or less by 2100? If there is a 2% or greater decline every 50 to 100 years, it is clear to me that White skin is completely going away.
And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.

by Katganistan » Sat May 16, 2015 11:48 pm
Draakonite wrote:Gauthier wrote:
Way to get the point. People are bitching about her comments because they feel it's an unacceptable target (white males). If it were directed at acceptable targets (Muslims) then the same people bitching would rise up to defend her Freedom of Speech regardless of what the university actually did.
If I would be a teacher and said "I don't buy in muslim stores on 9/11", Losing my job would be my least issue. I would be worried of losing my freedom, because Volksverhetzung.
by Kabardine Balkaria » Sat May 16, 2015 11:49 pm
by Souseiseki » Sat May 16, 2015 11:52 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Katganistan wrote:And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.
Yet people are likewise angry when the Tibetans, or the Uyghrs, or other indigenous people are being demographically displaced. I'm not in favor of racial discrimination, or an ethnically pure country (and I'm not a white nationalist), but there seems to be a double standard over here.

by Parhe » Sat May 16, 2015 11:52 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Katganistan wrote:And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.
Yet people are likewise angry when the Tibetans, or the Uyghrs, or other indigenous people are being demographically displaced. I'm not in favor of racial discrimination, or an ethnically pure country (and I'm not a white nationalist), but there seems to be a double standard over here.

by Katganistan » Sat May 16, 2015 11:53 pm
Augarundus wrote:For Christ's sake, this sort of reaction is the reason we can't have reasonable discussions, and it's exactly the sort of reaction I'd expect the professor to have. One should be able to voice a view, no matter how controversial, if one has reasons for holding it: the belief that certain views are "too offensive" (and I have no idea what this even means - what non-arbitrary standard for offense-taking is acceptable?) to be discussed. The problem isn't that we're having discussions about race or gender: it's that these discussions are so polluted with emotional nonsense, "trigger warnings", and prohibitions on speech that debate is no longer possible.
No, she should not be fired. Moreover, she should not have apologized - her views are stupid, but she should at least defend them, not cower from the public eye for having been outed. If she thinks that she has "indelicate" in her speech, who cares? It doesn't matter how "delicately" she makes her argument so long as there is an argument to be made (though I doubt that there truly is one, and, as is often the case in debates about 'sensitive' issues like this, offense-taking will probably be used to shut down a debate as soon as one's opinion is seriously challenged).
She should be fired because she makes no contribution to academia - because the vast majority of soft-science sociologists' work (with notable exceptions) is absolute garbage and needlessly detracts resources from other, more valuable humanities and science departments. She should be fired for bad scholarship, not because she represented her views honestly and openly.

by Katganistan » Sat May 16, 2015 11:56 pm
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Katganistan wrote:The degree of offense and rage in this thread frankly doesn't make those speaking against her look good at all.
You know, I think what she said was racist and stupid, and I still have to agree. Some people have overreacted in a way that makes them look just as racist and stupid as she did.
She wrote some obnoxious tweets and people are reacting like she's murdering babies or something.

by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun May 17, 2015 12:02 am

by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun May 17, 2015 12:03 am
Katganistan wrote:Saiwania wrote:
How it that impossible? Do you not get that since 1950 Whites have declined from 15% of global population to only about 8% by 2010 and will be down to 6% or less by 2100? If there is a 2% or greater decline every 50 to 100 years, it is clear to me that White skin is completely going away.
And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.

by Gauthier » Sun May 17, 2015 12:04 am

by Shnercropolis » Sun May 17, 2015 12:04 am
Kabardine Balkaria wrote:As a Caucasian man, I'd be very uncomfortable sitting in her class. Her position is untenable.

by Parhe » Sun May 17, 2015 12:06 am


by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun May 17, 2015 12:07 am

by Shnercropolis » Sun May 17, 2015 12:08 am

by Transnapastain » Sun May 17, 2015 12:09 am

by Katganistan » Sun May 17, 2015 12:14 am
Parhe wrote:Katganistan wrote:And I repeat:
SO WHAT? If it's declining so badly, then there is a reason for it. Natural selection seems a good bet.
While I agree on the so what aspect of race and skin color I don't entirely feel "natural selection" can really be pinned as the sole or single largest reason behind the drop in portion of Earth's human population being "white," though I would be interested in hearing reasons why you feel it, natural selection, is.

by Herskerstad » Sun May 17, 2015 12:15 am

by Nazi Flower Power » Sun May 17, 2015 12:18 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Achan, Dogmeat, Floofybit, Ifreann, Kandorith, Northern Seleucia, West Deapol Laulandingedk
Advertisement