Drexel professor "ironically" promotes 'white genocide'

[Gauthier]

This man is an idiot. Why are you listening to idiots?

Because 2016 is the year of the Idiot Pride Movement.

[Novus America]

According to some identifying as alt right sure. But this professor talked not about that, but an actual white genocide where whites were hacked to death for machetes just for being white.

Interracial marriage is NOT genocide.
But hacking white people to death with machetes just for being white IS genocide.

Yeah see I get that (though that hasn't really happened that much in recent years

Sure, problem is this professor explicitly advocated past times were it had happened. He explicitly supported the machete hacking.

Had he said "I support white 'genocide' if interracial marriage is white 'genocide'" That would be something different. A little inflammatory perhaps but would be making the point you are trying to make. And could be grounds for discussion. I would not say he should be fired for that.

But he did not and went on to advocate death by machete hacking.

[New Scario]

According to some identifying as alt right sure. But this professor talked not about that, but an actual white genocide where whites were hacked to death for machetes just for being white.

Interracial marriage is NOT genocide.
But hacking white people to death with machetes just for being white IS genocide.

Yeah see I get that (though that hasn't really happened that much in recent years

Not really, yeah, but it's happened, so its a reality as a legitimate concept that whites have been in fact oppressed and hunted down in some cultures, although not many, and not recently.

A notable leader who is very anti-white, is the leader of Zimbabwe.

Do these instances occur in the West? As far as I've seen, no.

http://www.newsweek.com/mugabe-whites-cant-own-land-zimbabwe-257529

[Blakk Metal]

If this professor knew what he was doing, he would said, "I want to fuck Skin Diamond with no protection."

Thats pushing it, given he himself provided cases where whites were hunted down and massacred.
His excuse is is that "whites arent a race"

White Genocide, as pushed by the alt-right, if that whites will no longer exist do to interracial marriages.

That's an oversimplification. 'White genocide' is the alleged effort by pathologically anti-Occidental elites (often, but not always, referring to Jews) to phase out whiteness by the facilitated diffusion of foreigners and the depression of Occidental birth rates.

[Gauthier]

Little shocker the same side that likes to sneer about political correctness, safe spaces and SJWs would get triggered by a college professor and demand his censure.

[Novus America]

Little shocker the same side that likes to sneer about political correctness, safe spaces and SJWs would get triggered by a college professor and demand his censure.

Umm had he advocated blacks being hacked to death I am pretty sure people on both sides would say he should be fired.

There is a middle ground here. The political correctness and safe space stuff often goes to far.
But professors should not be advocating mass murder either.

Just because you should not get overly upset by someone untitentially saying something you find somewhat offensive does not mean you should not get a bit upset when someone advocates killing your race with machetes.

This is not a black or white dichotomy. Middle ground can exist between extreme political correctness and professors advocating mass murder.

[Tahar Joblis]

According to some identifying as alt right sure. But this professor talked not about that, but an actual white genocide where whites were hacked to death for machetes just for being white.

Interracial marriage is NOT genocide.
But hacking white people to death with machetes just for being white IS genocide.

Yeah see I get that (though that hasn't really happened that much in recent years

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
http://genocidewatch.net/?s=south+africa

There is something of a current problem, and some whites (particularly white farmers) are being hacked to death for being white. It's not at the stage where you have military operations underway to eliminate the white population, but it is in an alarming state.

There are various definitions for genocide, and you could easily argue from the looser definitions that what is currently ongoing in South Africa qualifies; you have clear racially targeted violence and acts intended to drive out whites, with what Genocide Watch calls "strong circumstantial evidence of government support."

Compare and contrast those arguments to arguments over whether or not the displacement of native Americans qualifies as "genocide," properly speaking - and in particular, which historical acts can be counted as part of such.

[Constantinopolis]

Obvious trolling is obvious, and should be filed under free speech.

No one should be in danger of losing their job over a stupid tweet - yes, no matter how stupid, and that goes for right-wingers making Holocaust jokes too, for example. If he tweeted stuff like this on a regular basis that would be a different story. But a one-off mistake shouldn't ruin your life.

Let's be honest: In the pre-internet age, people made stupid jokes like this all the time with their friends, but since there was no written record of them, nothing happened. Now, with twitter and facebook, we suddenly have a written record of the stupid stuff that people say, and we're starting witch hunts based on it. That is wrong.

[New Scario]

Obvious trolling is obvious, and should be filed under free speech.

No one should be in danger of losing their job over a stupid tweet - yes, no matter how stupid, and that goes for right-wingers making Holocaust jokes too, for example. If he tweeted stuff like this on a regular basis that would be a different story. But a one-off mistake shouldn't ruin your life.

Let's be honest: In the pre-internet age, people made stupid jokes like this all the time with their friends, but since there was no written record of them, nothing happened. Now, with twitter and facebook, we suddenly have a written record of the stupid stuff that people say, and we're starting witch hunts based on it. That is wrong.

“To clarify, when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

This was a second post, if he was being a troll, he certainly was making it difficult to blur the line.

[Novus America]

Obvious trolling is obvious, and should be filed under free speech.

No one should be in danger of losing their job over a stupid tweet - yes, no matter how stupid, and that goes for right-wingers making Holocaust jokes too, for example. If he tweeted stuff like this on a regular basis that would be a different story. But a one-off mistake shouldn't ruin your life.

Let's be honest: In the pre-internet age, people made stupid jokes like this all the time with their friends, but since there was no written record of them, nothing happened. Now, with twitter and facebook, we suddenly have a written record of the stupid stuff that people say, and we're starting witch hunts based on it. That is wrong.

Drexel is a private university. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. It simply means he cannot be jailed over this.

In the pre internet age you could get in trouble with your for saying something stupid. And still be recorded.

Saying something on Twitter and Facebook is not saying something in private. It is publishing something on a global platform.

In the pre internet age if you said something this stupid in an interview with the New York Times you would be hounded.

[Alvecia]

Obvious trolling is obvious, and should be filed under free speech.

No one should be in danger of losing their job over a stupid tweet - yes, no matter how stupid, and that goes for right-wingers making Holocaust jokes too, for example. If he tweeted stuff like this on a regular basis that would be a different story. But a one-off mistake shouldn't ruin your life.

Let's be honest: In the pre-internet age, people made stupid jokes like this all the time with their friends, but since there was no written record of them, nothing happened. Now, with twitter and facebook, we suddenly have a written record of the stupid stuff that people say, and we're starting witch hunts based on it. That is wrong.

“To clarify, when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

This was a second post, if he was being a troll, he certainly was making it difficult to blur the line.

I listen to a podcast where they regularly make jokes far, far, far worse than this. I honestly cannot tell if he is joking or not.

[Constantinopolis]

Little shocker the same side that likes to sneer about political correctness, safe spaces and SJWs would get triggered by a college professor and demand his censure.

Umm had he advocated blacks being hacked to death I am pretty sure people on both sides would say he should be fired.

No. Let me be absolutely clear: No one should ever be fired for a couple of tweets, no matter what those tweets contain.

Why? Because anyone can get angry and say something stupid that they don't really mean, and/or tweet while drunk, and/or make a bad attempt at a joke, etc., and people shouldn't lose their jobs for that.

[Gauthier]

Umm had he advocated blacks being hacked to death I am pretty sure people on both sides would say he should be fired.

No. Let me be absolutely clear: No one should ever be fired for a couple of tweets, no matter what those tweets contain.

Why? Because anyone can get angry and say something stupid that they don't really mean, and/or tweet while drunk, and/or make a bad attempt at a joke, etc., and people shouldn't lose their jobs for that.

Little shocker the same side that howled about Milo Whatshisname being banned by Twitter over a history of harassment wants a liberal college professor sacked over a single Tweet.

[Novus America]

Umm had he advocated blacks being hacked to death I am pretty sure people on both sides would say he should be fired.

No. Let me be absolutely clear: No one should ever be fired for a couple of tweets, no matter what those tweets contain.

Why? Because anyone can get angry and say something stupid that they don't really mean, and/or tweet while drunk, and/or make a bad attempt at a joke, etc., and people shouldn't lose their jobs for that.

See my edit. A tweet is publishing something on a global platform not merely saying it. Also he could have and should have been fired for saying this in public. Certainly if he ran down a bust street shouting it. Drunk or not.

[Proctopeo]

No. Let me be absolutely clear: No one should ever be fired for a couple of tweets, no matter what those tweets contain.

Why? Because anyone can get angry and say something stupid that they don't really mean, and/or tweet while drunk, and/or make a bad attempt at a joke, etc., and people shouldn't lose their jobs for that.

Little shocker the same side that howled about Milo Whatshisname being banned by Twitter over a history of harassment wants a liberal college professor sacked over a single Tweet.

I'm having a little trouble seeing how getting banned from Twitter over a history of harassment is comparable to getting fired for advocating for genocide, joking or no. Could just be me, though.

[Constantinopolis]

Drexel is a private university.

For the record, I also think private universities should not exist.

Saying something on Twitter and Facebook is not saying something in private. It is publishing something on a global platform.

In the pre internet age if you said something this stupid in an interview with the New York Times you would be hounded.

Yeah, see, treating twitter or facebook as equivalent to a New York Times interview is precisely the problem here. People don't use twitter and facebook under the assumption that they are doing something equivalent to publishing their words in a major newspaper. People routinely use twitter and facebook under the assumption that they are doing something equivalent to going out for drinks with friends and talking about whatever.

In other words, people don't choose their words carefully on twitter or facebook like they would choose their words in an interview. And we shouldn't expect them to.

[Gauthier]

Little shocker the same side that howled about Milo Whatshisname being banned by Twitter over a history of harassment wants a liberal college professor sacked over a single Tweet.

I'm having a little trouble seeing how getting banned from Twitter over a history of harassment is comparable to getting fired for advocating for genocide, joking or no. Could just be me, though.

Because I have a feeling the same people who howled "FREE SPEECH" back then are ones calling for the professor's blood right now.

[Constantinopolis]

Let me give you an example of how much it matters whether or not you choose your words carefully. Consider the following two statements:

A) "I believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good and justified and I would order them again in similar circumstances."
B) "To clarify, when the Japanese were massacred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that was a good thing indeed."

The two statements mean basically the same thing. Yet (A) is a widespread opinion held by many history professors and no one bats an eyelash over it. Should people be fired or publicly shamed for tweeting (B), then?

Now consider another set of equivalent statements:

A) "I believe that violence against slave owners is good and the Haitian Revolution was good and the innocent deaths that resulted from it are acceptable collateral damage."
B) "To clarify, when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed."

You see? You could easily say (A) and no one would suggest that you should be fired or publicly shamed. If this professor had chosen his words carefully, he would have probably said (A). But because he was just tweeting, and because he wanted to troll white nationalists, he went with (B) instead.

[Proctopeo]

I'm having a little trouble seeing how getting banned from Twitter over a history of harassment is comparable to getting fired for advocating for genocide, joking or no. Could just be me, though.

Because I have a feeling the same people who howled "FREE SPEECH" back then are ones calling for the professor's blood right now.

I see. I was in a different, yet similar, camp in that debacle, and same goes for this one, too. Honestly, we need to be less careless with social media, and make controversial jokes anonymously.

[Novus America]

Drexel is a private university.

For the record, I also think private universities should not exist.

Saying something on Twitter and Facebook is not saying something in private. It is publishing something on a global platform.

In the pre internet age if you said something this stupid in an interview with the New York Times you would be hounded.

Yeah, see, treating twitter or facebook as equivalent to a New York Times interview is precisely the problem here. People don't use twitter and facebook under the assumption that they are doing something equivalent to publishing their words in a major newspaper. People routinely use twitter and facebook under the assumption that they are doing something equivalent to going out for drinks with friends and talking about whatever.

In other words, people don't choose their words carefully on twitter or facebook like they would choose their words in an interview. And we shouldn't expect them to.

Still freedom of speech does not protect him from Drexel.

And no, we SHOULD expect people to choose their words carefully on Facebook and Twitter.
Just because some people do not understand how to responsibly use Facebook and Twitter does not mean people should not be held accountable for their irresponsiblity.

It is objectively publishing something on a global platform regardless of SOME people not being able to understand that.

Note not everyone has these problems with Facebook and Twitter. Because a lot of people do get it.

[Ostroeuropa]

At what point do we admit there's a problem in higher education when it comes to vilification of whites and males, who are, I remind you, a minority at universities, and a minority losing ground too.

It goes beyond just one professor. It's a systemic problem.

[Arcaniana]

I don't understand some of the people in this thread. People who say thing like:
"the same side that supported people like milo, are now supporting censorship. what a surprise?"

this professor is calling for VIOLENCE against an entire race, the worst thing milo and others like him have done is to not discourage a few of their followers from comparing a black woman to a gorilla. Where do you see the similarity?

I personally believe he shouldn't be fired, but I also think that the conversation he is going to have with the university regarding his views, should be recorded and released to the public so we can see how he will try to rationalize his disgusting views.

[Gauthier]

I don't understand some of the people in this thread. People who say thing like:
"the same side that supported people like milo, are now supporting censorship. what a surprise?"

this professor is calling for VIOLENCE against an entire race, the worst thing milo and others like him have done is to not discourage a few of their followers from comparing a black woman to a gorilla. Where do you see the similarity?

I personally believe he shouldn't be fired, but I also think that the conversation he is going to have with the university regarding his views, should be recorded and released to the public so we can see how he will try to rationalize his disgusting views.

A gorilla that was shot dead by police, since you leave that part out conveniently.

[Arcaniana]

A gorilla that was shot dead by police, since you leave that part out conveniently.

I genuinely didn't know the gorilla they were comparing her to was harambe. but that is still the most indirect call for violence ever. "I hope that one day, in a zoo, you will get shot by a cop because I think you look like a gorilla"

on the other hand, the professor said: "I don't think its bad for white people to be killed by haitians"

[Gauthier]

A gorilla that was shot dead by police, since you leave that part out conveniently.

I genuinely didn't know the gorilla they were comparing her to was harambe. but that is still the most indirect call for violence ever. "I hope that one day, in a zoo, you will get shot by a cop because I think you look like a gorilla"

on the other hand, the professor said: "I don't think its bad for white people to be killed by haitians"

How is saying whites being killed by Haitians is not a bad thing a direct call to violence unlike comparing a black woman to a gorilla shot dead by police?