Seems to me that every single instance you point to is in regards to personal interactions. No laws, no people who hold actual power in government, no state power or authority. Just dipshits pissed off at other dipshits. Occupy Wall Street organizers could no more "force" anyone to the back of an assembly than you could force me to eat at Subway for lunch tomorrow. Were their hands bound with rope while they were herded into position with a cattle prod?? No?? Then I guess they were 100% free to leave the assembly and go get a caramel latte or fountain soda, or literally anything else. The kind of nonsense that is being complained about here while supposedly being used as examples analagous to the state-sanctioned historical oppression of minorities in this country is laughable.
I'm all for taking a look at these issues from a more holistic perspective.
Certainly we can be open to the possibility that wishing for white genocide was an attempt to highlight racism. I see racism very plainly there, in fact.
In what way can any anti racist message, which I am assuming is the motive you are attributing to him, be interpreted? You'll honestly have to guide me through this one.
For the record, i'm intimately familiar with how certain alt-righters use the term- they fear the social and cultural displacement of europeans and american whites as a result of them becoming minorities in their own countries. This may be a touch better than wishing for their actual deaths. It is NOT a positive message by any means.
Any way you want to turn this square, it's not gonna make a circle. He's promoting a thing, which he calls white genocide, not racial equality. Whatever the meaning of that we want to attribute to him, it's not a racially equal message by any means.
I contend my version of events, that is was a malicious message rather than one merely highlighting racism, is more plausible.
So even after reading the white professors very own explanation of the tweet. You still believe it was out of hate and malicious against his very own ethnicity group?
That kinda sounds like you are just believing what you want to believe and not taking all the facts and information given to you. That's ok. Believe what you want to believe but don't preach it as fact.
Now, I do agree that Twitter might not have been the best forum for this teacher to share this type of parody as it has and probably will always be misinterpreted by at least a few people.
Deltago, if you are going to defend the course, let's start from the very, very beginning, because I reject the fundamental concept it's supposed to be teaching. The Problem of Whiteness. When did it not become almost the strict definition of racial prejudice to be tying negative beliefs or patterns of behavior to race? I don't care if they swear up and down that they are anti racist. From the course description:
"It explores how they consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender. In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
Preaching at whites about how they perpetuate racism and their Whiteness and "white identity" is a problem whether they intend it or not and they should become, in their words, race traitors. Is there any doubt where the source of the racial prejudice really lies. If this is #woke, I want to remain #inadeepcoma forever. Nothing about this screams equality.
One more thing. That journal they referenced, Race Traitor, with that motto. Their first issue. Had an article entitled "ABOLISH THE WHITE RACE". This is the ideology they are drawing from. It has no place in modern society.
OK lets do this again...
Did you even read the article "Abolish the White Race?" How about "How the Irish Became White?" From here
The aim was to chronicle and analyze the making, remaking, and unmaking of whiteness. My book on the Irish was the story of how people for whom whiteness had no meaning learned its rules and adapted their behavior to take advantage of them; Race Traitor was an attempt to run the film backwards, to explore how people who had been brought up as white might become unwhite....
Did you take the course? Do you know someone who took the course? Did you read any literature that was being taught in the course besides the description?
If the answer is no, you are just assuming what is being said and told in the course. You are not listening to the ideas and thoughts that people are putting forward and then countering them with your own thoughts and ideas. Instead, you are putting up this brick wall and screaming 'no" repeatedly.
If what is being taught and said in these articles and classrooms are so racist and unbearable give examples beyond the title and counter it. No one does this because it easier to misdirect and misinform than it is change ones behaviour when it is being called out either directly or indirectly.
There may indeed be radicals on all sides, but the right doesn't stick up for their real awful people. Nobody in what people call the "alt lite" like Mike Cernovich defend the racists or jew haters in the alt right. You wouldn't see me stick up for the good name of Richard Spencer or defend his ideas. People aren't even aware, broadly speaking, of the real hate from the left. This goes back to the massive discrepancy in political ideology among journalists.
No, but I do know that somone you called centre right (he isn't btw) inspires them.
I'm all for taking a look at these issues from a more holistic perspective.
Certainly we can be open to the possibility that wishing for white genocide was an attempt to highlight racism. I see racism very plainly there, in fact.
In what way can any anti racist message, which I am assuming is the motive you are attributing to him, be interpreted? You'll honestly have to guide me through this one.
For the record, i'm intimately familiar with how certain alt-righters use the term- they fear the social and cultural displacement of europeans and american whites as a result of them becoming minorities in their own countries. This may be a touch better than wishing for their actual deaths. It is NOT a positive message by any means.
Any way you want to turn this square, it's not gonna make a circle. He's promoting a thing, which he calls white genocide, not racial equality. Whatever the meaning of that we want to attribute to him, it's not a racially equal message by any means.
I contend my version of events, that is was a malicious message rather than one merely highlighting racism, is more plausible.
I think that depends on what you mean by a malicious message. The link I gave in my previous post included the professor's own defence that the comment was sarcastic. You can find quite a lot of his previous writing and interviews explaining how his views were formed via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ciccariello-Maher
If you consider the context created by his previous writings I don't think it's credible to argue that he was in fact arguing for white genocide (whether defined as killings or 'breeding into extinction'). However, I would agree that I don't think the tweet was just a sarcastic comment about white supremacists - I suspect that a major reason for posting it was in fact to create offense. The professor is a believer in direct action and I suspect he's fully capable of deliberately creating controversy in order to highlight the issues he's concerned with.
The main point I would draw from this is that the professor does in fact believe in and wish to promote racial equality. I don't agree with his politics or his tactics, but I do believe that the end goal of treating everyone equally should be shared by everyone.
Nearly everything Trump says that is indefensible is (and has been) written off as a "joke", from the beginning. Alt-right trolls are given the same escape hatch, to the point that it is impossible to criticize them for anything. But possibly sarcastic comments by a college professor?? Perish the thought....
Did you take the course? Do you know someone who took the course? Did you read any literature that was being taught in the course besides the description?
If the answer is no, you are just assuming what is being said and told in the course. You are not listening to the ideas and thoughts that people are putting forward and then countering them with your own thoughts and ideas. Instead, you are putting up this brick wall and screaming 'no" repeatedly.
@WarChiefZeke was quoting the syllabus itself. If you don't think the syllabus accurately portrays the class, then what does? And how do you know?
If we are to judge the course, we should do it based on the evidence we have. And we have one piece of evidence taken directly from the source, which is the syllabus.
Do you have another piece of evidence, directly taken from the source, which proves the syllabus is inaccurate?
If the answer is no, you are just assuming what is being said and told in the course.
There was a bombing at an Islamic Center in MN, which both the FBI and Gov. have confirmed was terrorism. There hasn't been a peep (relatively speaking) from the media and not a word from the White House. If the opposite were true, it would be 24/7 fear-mongering. Again, let's dispense with the bullshit and either change the definiton of the word to "when Muslims (and only Muslims) commit violent acts" or retire the word altogether, as it is now devoid of it's actual meaning and beyond salvaging.
Well if we are going to quote the Course Description, lets quote the entire thing and evaluate that, not just select pieces that fits a certain narrative that one is attempting to sell through misdirection.
Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably “no.” But here is your chance! In Frantz Fanon’s famous Black Skin, White Masks (1952), his chapter “Look, a Negro!” interrogated the meaning and experience of coming to know oneself as Black under the constant scrutiny of the white gaze. It is an experience concomitant with W.E.B. Du Bois’s observation that under systemic racism, even well-meaning whites are constantly asking, in one way or another, “what is it like to be a problem?” But, Like Richard Wright’s quote above, philosopher George Yancy’s book, Look, a White! (2010), turns the question around, and rightly returns “the problem of whiteness” to white people. After all, since white supremacy was created by white people, is it not white folks who have the greatest responsibility to eradicate it? Our class begins here. We will come together with our socially ascribed identities of Black, white, mixed and other and, with the problem properly in its place we will ask ourselves and our allies, what are we going to do with it? Critical Whiteness Studies aims to understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy. Our class will break away from the standard US-centric frame, and consider how whiteness is constructed globally, with particular attention to paradigmatic cases like South Africa. Whereas disciplines such as Latino/a, African, and Asian American studies focus on race as experienced by non-whites, whiteness studies considers how race is experienced by white people. It explores how they consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender. In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Readings will include: W.E.B. Du Bois, 1920. “The Souls of White Folks” in Dark Water George Yancy, 2010. Look, a White! Ta-Nehisi Coates, 2015. Between the World and Me Damon Sajnani, 2015. “Rachel/Racial Theory: Reverse Passing in the Curious Case of Rachel Dolezal” Tim Wise, 2016. White Lies Matter: Race, Crime, and the Politics of Fear in America
So once again, lets look at the ideas and questions being put forth, just in the description alone.
"Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white?" The question immediately answers itself stating that, no most people do not know what it means to be white. As "white privilege" is explained, most people who benefit from it do not know they are benefiting from it in a blissful ignorance. Now this is not to open the debate on it, this is just one points I am attempting to assume this course highlights. It is more like asking "Have you ever wondered what it is really like to be a woman? to introduce a social course on Women's Studies. I do not think most people would think that type of course is sexist, even though it eliminates half the population from what it is studying.
“...what is it like to be a problem?...” So in the United States, fear tactics have persisted through out history that he young black man needs to be feared. That they are a problem that needs to be fixed, or white washed away their culture, heritage and history. But is it really a problem?
But, Like Richard Wright’s quote above, philosopher George Yancy’s book, Look, a White! (2010), turns the question around, and rightly returns “the problem of whiteness” to white people. After all, since white supremacy was created by white people, is it not white folks who have the greatest responsibility to eradicate it? Our class begins here.
So is it a Caucasians responsibility to eliminate the white supremacy movement? We ask/demand Muslim world leader to condemn and help eliminate terrorist ideas born out of the religion Islam. How is it different then from asking white people/Caucasians to help eliminate the problems born from white supremacy?
It is this line of thinking that begins the class. It is to define, what it means to be white, what they have that others do not have and how can that be fixed and how can we as a society make it so that everyone has what they have.
It is like a reverse Woman's Studies:
social problems using insights from political science, sociology, and gender studies. We begin with an exploration of the sociological perspective, and how social problems are defined as such. We then examine the general issues of inequalities based on economic and employment status, racial and ethnic identity, and gender and sexual orientation. We apply these categories of analysis to problems facing the educational system and the criminal justice system.
and instead of looking those oppressed and why they are oppressed, looking at those privileged and why they are privileged.
We will come together with our socially ascribed identities of Black, white, mixed and other and, with the problem properly in its place we will ask ourselves and our allies, what are we going to do with it?
Once white privilege is defined properly to the understanding of those taking the course, they are then going to enter discussions on how to eliminate the problem of it. They are not going to eliminate the privilege part, but the white part. They are going to form discussions on how to bring this privilege to everyone. Hence the course title.
The second part of the description explains that they are going to look at it globally and not just focus on the United States, giving South Africa as an example of "consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender."
They will then take these extreme examples and compare them to the local community to see what is the same, what is different and what can be changed to eliminate the white, from white privilege.
~
So in short, this course is a reverse way of looking at social problems being faced in America today, but instead of highlighting those that are being oppressed, highlighting those who are not and attempting to figure out why that is and how to level the playing field so to speak, to bring equality to those who do not have these benefits.
Here is the type of scumbag we are dealing with. Keep in mind this is all while starting a 17 day vacation that he is insisting is actually not a vacation:
There was a bombing at an Islamic Center in MN, which both the FBI and Gov. have confirmed was terrorism. There hasn't been a peep (relatively speaking) from the media and not a word from the White House. If the opposite were true, it would be 24/7 fear-mongering. Again, let's dispense with the bullshit and either change the definiton of the word to "when Muslims (and only Muslims) commit violent acts" or retire the word altogether, as it is now devoid of it's actual meaning and beyond salvaging.
Just a correction, the FBI hasn't called it a terrorist act or hate crime yet. They still don't know who did it (at least not publicly), and they won't speculate on the motive without evidence. Granted it probably is a hate crime, but let's not jump the gun. As for the Governor, that's just a politician spouting off.
An amazing article about a town in Texas that conducted a real-life experiment in what happens when you go balls to the walls, full-on right-wing libertarian in every aspect of governance (or, as it turns out, lack thereof). Spoiler: it didn't work out.
An amazing article about a town in Texas that conducted a real-life experiment in what happens when you go balls to the walls, full-on right-wing libertarian in every aspect of governance (or, as it turns out, lack thereof). Spoiler: it didn't work out.
Libertarians always fascinate me... I've noticed two types, the idealists and the exploiters, that seem to like it. I like freedom and all, but I really see intrinsic advantage in an orderly, highly cooperative society. I historically have swung from right to left a fair bit (I'm probably more of a centrist/pragmatist), but I see investment of authority as inevitable.
An amazing article about a town in Texas that conducted a real-life experiment in what happens when you go balls to the walls, full-on right-wing libertarian in every aspect of governance (or, as it turns out, lack thereof). Spoiler: it didn't work out.
Libertarians always fascinate me... I've noticed two types, the idealists and the exploiters, that seem to like it. I like freedom and all, but I really see intrinsic advantage in an orderly, highly cooperative society. I historically have swung from right to left a fair bit (I'm probably more of a centrist/pragmatist), but I see investment of authority as inevitable.
I find these comments from the reader section quite prescient:
Society for many people is no longer a desirable concept. The big hit for me in the article is at the end, "a lot of people here don't care, they just want to be left alone." That is the dream for many people, to be left alone. Modern life is too complex and too stressful to bear, and so they just want to hide from it in a huge house like a castle far away from anyone else, from any interactivity with society and its challenges. Inside their own walls they are safe.
But it's an illusion. Just a few steps outside the door life goes on with it's unstoppable way. They cannot hide from it, to be human is to be a part of a society. To be in the State of Texas, to be a state in the United States, to be among 8 billion people on the planet earth, is to be a part of an organism, and they are such a part of the body that they ARE the body. You can no more separate from society than you can separate your own head from your body. You are society. You are Von Ormy.
So that contradiction between the way they want to live their lives and the way life IS, will tear them apart, as it's torn their town apart.
and
These folks are in denial about the consequences of their actions. If they want a government-free anarcho-capitalist utopia, then the market has decided: Van Ormy is dead. The resources are not valuable enough to harvest, the population is not wealthy enough to cater to, the services are insufficient for business needs, and the price of a sewer system is out of their reach. Too bad, so sad, suck it up buttercup and move to where the jobs are. Let Van Ormy become another dead Ghost Town on the American landscape.
Or, they can grow up, chip in and make Van Ormy competitive with cities that use taxes to pay for civic improvements and community services.
From my time in and out of the Libertarian group, I came to the conclusion that it would be better suited to very small groups. There are just too many ppl in the US, with so many varying ideas, that it just would not work, at all. Even then, the free-rider situation would be a terrible problem I suspect ,as well as 'rubbernecker syndrome'.
They do have the most entertaining conventions though, by far.
An amazing article about a town in Texas that conducted a real-life experiment in what happens when you go balls to the walls, full-on right-wing libertarian in every aspect of governance (or, as it turns out, lack thereof). Spoiler: it didn't work out.
Hilarious, who was that dork who was saying he took his daughter to buy something but omg she didn't have enough because of sales tax and that's why government doesn't work. Some naive people out there.
Libertarians always fascinate me... I've noticed two types, the idealists and the exploiters, that seem to like it. I like freedom and all, but I really see intrinsic advantage in an orderly, highly cooperative society. I historically have swung from right to left a fair bit (I'm probably more of a centrist/pragmatist), but I see investment of authority as inevitable.
Libertianism makes sense as long as you believe that human being can exist as not sustained by society that created it (or to phrase is differently: if you believe in individual that predates society). This is a core of that famed social contract - idea that there were humans enlighted by Natural Reason, without the need of society, society that is dependent on them, not the other way around. Libertarians nowadays tend to reject idea of social contract, but that rejection seems to based on the same belief that brought that myth to life.
The fact is, since Reagan over 35 years ago, the core principle of the right in this country is not only that government doesn't work, but that it is the enemy. What people don't realize is that there are hundreds of things in their daily lives they take for granted that are only provided and maintained BECAUSE of government. And the reason they don't think they are important or notice them is proof positive that government is doing it's job. If your road to work is paved and not full of potholes, thank taxes and government. If there is a well-paid fire department in your city, thank taxes and government. The examples are infinite.
The fact is, since Reagan over 35 years ago, the core principle of the right in this country is not only that government doesn't work, but that it is the enemy. What people don't realize is that there are hundreds of things in their daily lives they take for granted that are only provided and maintained BECAUSE of government. And the reason they don't think they are important or notice them is proof positive that government is doing it's job. If your road to work is paved and not full of potholes, thank taxes and government. If there is a well-paid fire department in your city, thank taxes and government. The examples are infinite.
I'm fairly right of center and I don't have a problem with taxes as long as the money is spent well. The problem with government is the corruption inherent with spending other people's money. It's very easy to spend money you didn't earn. Just ask my children!
The fact is, since Reagan over 35 years ago, the core principle of the right in this country is not only that government doesn't work, but that it is the enemy. What people don't realize is that there are hundreds of things in their daily lives they take for granted that are only provided and maintained BECAUSE of government. And the reason they don't think they are important or notice them is proof positive that government is doing it's job. If your road to work is paved and not full of potholes, thank taxes and government. If there is a well-paid fire department in your city, thank taxes and government. The examples are infinite.
I'm fairly right of center and I don't have a problem with taxes as long as the money is spent well. The problem with government is the corruption inherent with spending other people's money. It's very easy to spend money you didn't earn. Just ask my children!
I actually think the far bigger problem with corruption in government occurs AFTER politicians leave their posts and go to work lobbying for big industry. Or beforehand in the form of campaign contributions. Actual public corruption while in office, if you are caught, will likely land you in prison. There is nothing that makes a career prosecutor salivate more than a corruption case against a politician. Your best defense against corruption is actually the egos of most District Attorneys.
The fact is, since Reagan over 35 years ago, the core principle of the right in this country is not only that government doesn't work, but that it is the enemy. What people don't realize is that there are hundreds of things in their daily lives they take for granted that are only provided and maintained BECAUSE of government. And the reason they don't think they are important or notice them is proof positive that government is doing it's job. If your road to work is paved and not full of potholes, thank taxes and government. If there is a well-paid fire department in your city, thank taxes and government. The examples are infinite.
I'm fairly right of center and I don't have a problem with taxes as long as the money is spent well. The problem with government is the corruption inherent with spending other people's money. It's very easy to spend money you didn't earn. Just ask my children!
Priorities are different, people disagree about the right way to spend money. People value different things, often it's just about taking care of your lobbyists to ensure they'll back your reelection.
The numbers people are talking about are often hard to digest. Can you fairly spend a billion dollars, a million dollars, or three hundred thousand and eleven dollars. I think perspective is easy to lose when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars that you could blow on a project and it not be a big deal. It's like how Stalin said that a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic. Perspective is everything and there will be shared decisions and compromises.
All that being said, there are things that are needed from a government. Just look at that article about the liberty cities where the simplest things were not taken care of such as a sewer system and hiring a competent police force.
An amazing article about a town in Texas that conducted a real-life experiment in what happens when you go balls to the walls, full-on right-wing libertarian in every aspect of governance (or, as it turns out, lack thereof). Spoiler: it didn't work out.
That city did not fail because of Libertarianism. Instead, it failed for three other reasons: 1) the architect of the plan, Mr. Martinez de Vara, didn't really know what he was doing and had no short- and long-term plans in place before beginning his experiment, 2) the people in charge of the city saw opportunities to gain political power for themselves (well, as much power as local politics can earn you) , and 3) they thought "pure" LIbertarianism would work--no political system ever works exactly like it is described in political science books, not even democracy or republics.
I wholeheartedly embrace Libertarian principles--more freedom is better, the government is *not* your friend no matter what services they may be providing to you, and so on--but I also understand that we must live in the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. Van Ormy should have taken on the debt required to modernize/connect to San Antonio's water/sewer system so that they could attract business, for starters, but then there are other areas where they simply made poor choices because they were so adamant to adhere to the textbook definition of "libertarian".
Despite its near-failure status, I would rather live in Van Ormy than Chicago, or New York City, or Los Angeles, or any other similar large city. Actually, that isn't entirely true--I could easily tolerate living in Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas.
I think the main takeaway from the Van Ormy article is that they believed the magic of the "free market" would save them, through sales tax. And then it turned out no one actually gave a shit about their little town. As far as the market was concerned, Van Ormy might as well have not existed at all.
As for Detroit, they have not had a good track record of mayors (I believe one is in prison), but the far bigger problem for Michigan cities seems to be the appointment of these wholly undemocratic emergency managers, who as far as I can tell are simply there to sell off public assets to the highest bidder. And let us not forget that Rick Snyder, as far as I'm concerned, sanctioned poisoning the water supply of an entire city. Hillary could have won Michigan if she had simply made weekly visits to Flint raising holy hell about the lead poisoning, instead of attempting to win Arizona of all places.
Van Ormy is like a lot of other small towns that have an interstate highway running through their borders--most of the businesses which thrive there do so only because of interstate traffic.
As far as the free market is concerned...well, the free market is like a stereotypical cat. Sometimes it walks up to you, jumps in your lap, purrs, lets you scratch it behind the ear, and you get to bask in the glow of having a loving pet. Other times, it will hiss at you and scratch your hand, presuming it hasn't already peed on your pillow and has made it clear that it wants nothing to do with you.
Agree re: emergency managers in Michigan. Everyone connected to the Flint water disaster should already be in jail or on trial awaiting conviction for allowing all those poisonings to take place. On the one hand saving money is a good thing--who doesn't like saving money?--but if saving money puts people's lives at risk you cannot afford to do it.
Van Ormy is like a lot of other small towns that have an interstate highway running through their borders--most of the businesses which thrive there do so only because of interstate traffic.
As far as the free market is concerned...well, the free market is like a stereotypical cat. Sometimes it walks up to you, jumps in your lap, purrs, lets you scratch it behind the ear, and you get to bask in the glow of having a loving pet. Other times, it will hiss at you and scratch your hand, presuming it hasn't already peed on your pillow and has made it clear that it wants nothing to do with you.
Agree re: emergency managers in Michigan. Everyone connected to the Flint water disaster should already be in jail or on trial awaiting conviction for allowing all those poisonings to take place. On the one hand saving money is a good thing--who doesn't like saving money?--but if saving money puts people's lives at risk you cannot afford to do it.
You're right about the interstate. Every single business in my hometown (including my aunt's hair salon) is located within eyesight of the interstate exit. The rest is a ghost town, minus the grain elevator. But the point being, no small town whose businesses must be immediately visible from the off-ramp is going to be able to fund the city based on sales tax alone.
"Report: North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons" sure sounds a lot like "Report: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" that happened under the last Republican President.
I'm with you and hate the fearmongering and misinformation that led to US entanglement in Iraq. In this case, it really seems like there is enough evidence corroborated by multiple sources that a) North Korea has nukes, and b) they have missiles.
It doesn't take a huge leap to think that they would be capable of putting nukes on those missiles. We've been doing it for decades, it's not so hard to believe that North Korea could figure it out - especially with help from former soviet rocket scientists.
I am doubtful they could reliably hit a target with an ICBM, but like horseshoes and hand grenades, "close" also matters with nukes.
FOX News, 99% of AM radio, and Sinclair broadcasting stations around the country are already basically Pravda. I'm not even sure why he thinks he needs this. His base is locked in place with 24/7 disinformation already.
I'm with you and hate the fearmongering and misinformation that led to US entanglement in Iraq. In this case, it really seems like there is enough evidence corroborated by multiple sources that a) North Korea has nukes, and b) they have missiles.
It doesn't take a huge leap to think that they would be capable of putting nukes on those missiles. We've been doing it for decades, it's not so hard to believe that North Korea could figure it out - especially with help from former soviet rocket scientists.
I am doubtful they could reliably hit a target with an ICBM, but like horseshoes and hand grenades, "close" also matters with nukes.
If we take pre-emptive action against North Korea, it's highly doubtful we will feel any retaliation. But Seoul could conceivably be obliterated, the capital of the country we have ostensibly been protecting all these years. Don't doubt that Trump will use this as his "war card". And again, another nail in the coffin of this supposed "Republicans are tough on national security" bullshit. North Korea has done more saber-rattling in the last 6 months than in the entire last decade combined, and if they do have this capability, it happened under Trump's watch.
Comments
That kinda sounds like you are just believing what you want to believe and not taking all the facts and information given to you. That's ok. Believe what you want to believe but don't preach it as fact.
Now, I do agree that Twitter might not have been the best forum for this teacher to share this type of parody as it has and probably will always be misinterpreted by at least a few people.
OK lets do this again...
Did you even read the article "Abolish the White Race?"
How about "How the Irish Became White?"
From here
Did you take the course?
Do you know someone who took the course?
Did you read any literature that was being taught in the course besides the description?
If the answer is no, you are just assuming what is being said and told in the course. You are not listening to the ideas and thoughts that people are putting forward and then countering them with your own thoughts and ideas. Instead, you are putting up this brick wall and screaming 'no" repeatedly.
If what is being taught and said in these articles and classrooms are so racist and unbearable give examples beyond the title and counter it. No one does this because it easier to misdirect and misinform than it is change ones behaviour when it is being called out either directly or indirectly. No, but I do know that somone you called centre right (he isn't btw) inspires them.
If you consider the context created by his previous writings I don't think it's credible to argue that he was in fact arguing for white genocide (whether defined as killings or 'breeding into extinction'). However, I would agree that I don't think the tweet was just a sarcastic comment about white supremacists - I suspect that a major reason for posting it was in fact to create offense. The professor is a believer in direct action and I suspect he's fully capable of deliberately creating controversy in order to highlight the issues he's concerned with.
The main point I would draw from this is that the professor does in fact believe in and wish to promote racial equality. I don't agree with his politics or his tactics, but I do believe that the end goal of treating everyone equally should be shared by everyone.
If we are to judge the course, we should do it based on the evidence we have. And we have one piece of evidence taken directly from the source, which is the syllabus.
Do you have another piece of evidence, directly taken from the source, which proves the syllabus is inaccurate?
If the answer is no, you are just assuming what is being said and told in the course.
This coming from a 5 time draft dodger who can't remember which foot had bone spurs. A prolific serial liar who gets imaginary calls from world leaders and boy scouts telling him he gives the most amazing speeches. This liar who bragged about how well Donald Trump does with the ladies using the aliases John Miller and John Barron.
Where the heck does he think he has any ground to stand on lol... The guy is a ridiculous fraud, go sell some more Trump steaks at Trump University.
Critical Whiteness Studies aims to understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy. Our class will break away from the standard US-centric frame, and consider how whiteness is constructed globally, with particular attention to paradigmatic cases like South Africa. Whereas disciplines such as Latino/a, African, and Asian American studies focus on race as experienced by non-whites, whiteness studies considers how race is experienced by white people. It explores how they consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender. In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
Readings will include:
W.E.B. Du Bois, 1920. “The Souls of White Folks” in Dark Water
George Yancy, 2010. Look, a White!
Ta-Nehisi Coates, 2015. Between the World and Me
Damon Sajnani, 2015. “Rachel/Racial Theory: Reverse Passing in the Curious Case of Rachel Dolezal”
Tim Wise, 2016. White Lies Matter: Race, Crime, and the Politics of Fear in America
So once again, lets look at the ideas and questions being put forth, just in the description alone.
"Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white?"
The question immediately answers itself stating that, no most people do not know what it means to be white.
As "white privilege" is explained, most people who benefit from it do not know they are benefiting from it in a blissful ignorance. Now this is not to open the debate on it, this is just one points I am attempting to assume this course highlights.
It is more like asking "Have you ever wondered what it is really like to be a woman? to introduce a social course on Women's Studies. I do not think most people would think that type of course is sexist, even though it eliminates half the population from what it is studying.
“...what is it like to be a problem?...”
So in the United States, fear tactics have persisted through out history that he young black man needs to be feared. That they are a problem that needs to be fixed, or white washed away their culture, heritage and history. But is it really a problem?
But, Like Richard Wright’s quote above, philosopher George Yancy’s book, Look, a White! (2010), turns the question around, and rightly returns “the problem of whiteness” to white people. After all, since white supremacy was created by white people, is it not white folks who have the greatest responsibility to eradicate it? Our class begins here.
So is it a Caucasians responsibility to eliminate the white supremacy movement? We ask/demand Muslim world leader to condemn and help eliminate terrorist ideas born out of the religion Islam. How is it different then from asking white people/Caucasians to help eliminate the problems born from white supremacy?
It is this line of thinking that begins the class. It is to define, what it means to be white, what they have that others do not have and how can that be fixed and how can we as a society make it so that everyone has what they have.
It is like a reverse Woman's Studies:
and instead of looking those oppressed and why they are oppressed, looking at those privileged and why they are privileged.
Once white privilege is defined properly to the understanding of those taking the course, they are then going to enter discussions on how to eliminate the problem of it. They are not going to eliminate the privilege part, but the white part. They are going to form discussions on how to bring this privilege to everyone. Hence the course title.
The second part of the description explains that they are going to look at it globally and not just focus on the United States, giving South Africa as an example of "consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender."
They will then take these extreme examples and compare them to the local community to see what is the same, what is different and what can be changed to eliminate the white, from white privilege.
~
So in short, this course is a reverse way of looking at social problems being faced in America today, but instead of highlighting those that are being oppressed, highlighting those who are not and attempting to figure out why that is and how to level the playing field so to speak, to bring equality to those who do not have these benefits.
https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/
Society for many people is no longer a desirable concept. The big hit for me in the article is at the end, "a lot of people here don't care, they just want to be left alone." That is the dream for many people, to be left alone. Modern life is too complex and too stressful to bear, and so they just want to hide from it in a huge house like a castle far away from anyone else, from any interactivity with society and its challenges. Inside their own walls they are safe.
But it's an illusion. Just a few steps outside the door life goes on with it's unstoppable way. They cannot hide from it, to be human is to be a part of a society. To be in the State of Texas, to be a state in the United States, to be among 8 billion people on the planet earth, is to be a part of an organism, and they are such a part of the body that they ARE the body. You can no more separate from society than you can separate your own head from your body. You are society. You are Von Ormy.
So that contradiction between the way they want to live their lives and the way life IS, will tear them apart, as it's torn their town apart.
and
These folks are in denial about the consequences of their actions. If they want a government-free anarcho-capitalist utopia, then the market has decided: Van Ormy is dead. The resources are not valuable enough to harvest, the population is not wealthy enough to cater to, the services are insufficient for business needs, and the price of a sewer system is out of their reach. Too bad, so sad, suck it up buttercup and move to where the jobs are. Let Van Ormy become another dead Ghost Town on the American landscape.
Or, they can grow up, chip in and make Van Ormy competitive with cities that use taxes to pay for civic improvements and community services.
Even then, the free-rider situation would be a terrible problem I suspect ,as well as 'rubbernecker syndrome'.
They do have the most entertaining conventions though, by far.
Libertianism makes sense as long as you believe that human being can exist as not sustained by society that created it (or to phrase is differently: if you believe in individual that predates society). This is a core of that famed social contract - idea that there were humans enlighted by Natural Reason, without the need of society, society that is dependent on them, not the other way around. Libertarians nowadays tend to reject idea of social contract, but that rejection seems to based on the same belief that brought that myth to life.
The numbers people are talking about are often hard to digest. Can you fairly spend a billion dollars, a million dollars, or three hundred thousand and eleven dollars. I think perspective is easy to lose when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars that you could blow on a project and it not be a big deal. It's like how Stalin said that a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic. Perspective is everything and there will be shared decisions and compromises.
All that being said, there are things that are needed from a government. Just look at that article about the liberty cities where the simplest things were not taken care of such as a sewer system and hiring a competent police force.
I wholeheartedly embrace Libertarian principles--more freedom is better, the government is *not* your friend no matter what services they may be providing to you, and so on--but I also understand that we must live in the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. Van Ormy should have taken on the debt required to modernize/connect to San Antonio's water/sewer system so that they could attract business, for starters, but then there are other areas where they simply made poor choices because they were so adamant to adhere to the textbook definition of "libertarian".
Despite its near-failure status, I would rather live in Van Ormy than Chicago, or New York City, or Los Angeles, or any other similar large city. Actually, that isn't entirely true--I could easily tolerate living in Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas.
Now...on the other end of the spectrum from Van Ormy is Detroit, where the city was assessing property taxes in violation of the Michigan State constitution and then subsequently foreclosing on houses where the homeowners should not have been paying those taxes in the first place. Before anyone says "see? Republicans hate poor people" be aware that the city of Detroit has been firmly Democrat for decades.
As for Detroit, they have not had a good track record of mayors (I believe one is in prison), but the far bigger problem for Michigan cities seems to be the appointment of these wholly undemocratic emergency managers, who as far as I can tell are simply there to sell off public assets to the highest bidder. And let us not forget that Rick Snyder, as far as I'm concerned, sanctioned poisoning the water supply of an entire city. Hillary could have won Michigan if she had simply made weekly visits to Flint raising holy hell about the lead poisoning, instead of attempting to win Arizona of all places.
As far as the free market is concerned...well, the free market is like a stereotypical cat. Sometimes it walks up to you, jumps in your lap, purrs, lets you scratch it behind the ear, and you get to bask in the glow of having a loving pet. Other times, it will hiss at you and scratch your hand, presuming it hasn't already peed on your pillow and has made it clear that it wants nothing to do with you.
Agree re: emergency managers in Michigan. Everyone connected to the Flint water disaster should already be in jail or on trial awaiting conviction for allowing all those poisonings to take place. On the one hand saving money is a good thing--who doesn't like saving money?--but if saving money puts people's lives at risk you cannot afford to do it.
It doesn't take a huge leap to think that they would be capable of putting nukes on those missiles. We've been doing it for decades, it's not so hard to believe that North Korea could figure it out - especially with help from former soviet rocket scientists.
I am doubtful they could reliably hit a target with an ICBM, but like horseshoes and hand grenades, "close" also matters with nukes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/fake-news-trump-launches-real-news-series-n790241