Well said, Ama. It's fine for schools to have speakers from all points of view, provided it's a two-way street. (Which of course it's not lately in the Ivy Leagues.)
Beyond that, all credit to Bari and Katie for covering this, and to Katie for this very well-conducted interview. No interruptions, or shouting or lecturing, or talking over the subject. This is why I subscribe.
And credit to Khilalani for doing the interview. She has to know her views won't gain many takers here. At least she's honest.
I agree with you Anna. Her statement that she prefers conservatives to the breed of fake antiracist whites struck me as refreshing. She's so deep into her own issues that depicting her as a CRT demon seems overblown. I hope the food service staff at Yale hides all of the sharp knives when she's anywhere near.
Technically, I donтАЩt have much of a problem with her actually making those arguments as IтАФlike you, and probably most reasonable individualsтАФam aware that mental health problems do not discriminate based on race. However, I do have a issue with her 1) still holding a profesional license 2) being the guest at a major academic institution while making those statements and having that institution sweep all of it under the rug.
I also have a BIG issue with people who embrace an ideology not too dissimilar to what the good Dr is spewing, and do so under the guise of righteousness and justice.
Anna, the problem is that Aruna Khilanani lives in a world where the vilest, most extreme forms of racial bigotry are normal. Think of upper-class whites in Selma, AL in 1910. Actually, they would be racial moderates compared to Aruna Khilanani. She exists in a world where the crassest forms of racism are as commonplace as water is to a fish or air is to a bird.
Go to her Twitter feed. You can actually find people complaining the that video hasn't been released. Of course, Aruna Khilanani agrees with them. They clearly cannot imagine why anyone would object to the video or its contents.
Twitter is not the 'real world'. However, Twitter is where (sometimes at least) speak their true (and very ugly) feelings. Go to Aruna Khilanani Twitter page. Her racism and bigotry are right up front.
I agree. I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not. It's the equivalent of holding up the leaders of Proud Boys or Oath keepers as typical of conservativesтАУтАУpeople with no social filter spouting their extreme views. And I get the distinct feeling that the psychiatrist approves of having no social filter. And in some ways she might have a point.
Like you, as an adult, I don't mind these kinds of conversations. They can make you think and question your assumptions more deeply, and that's the point of higher ed. And I think the questioner did a good job of listening and asking questions in a composed and non-defensive way. And good for Yale for being a true champion of free and open dialogue, as all institutions of higher ed ought to be. I'm actually glad a I read that interview. I found it insightful in terms how some people see the world.
MM, "I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not.". Actually, it is. Of course, most of the DIE folks avoid publicly fantasying about murder. However, the radical, racial hatred is near universal. Check out "A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction". It's dripping with crude racism. It has also been adopted by the state of California as a 'standard'.
When the Proud Boys are getting tenure at prestigious universities and teaching their dogma without restraint under conditions in which any criticism costs the critic his career, then you can make that comparison. When the federal government is mandating that their dogma be part of the curriculum at every public school, and a large majority of Republicans approve of the politicians responsible and refuse to criticize the policy, then you can make that comparison.
Yes, very insightful how a head case professional grievance-monger expresses her racial resentments. Ironically (perhaps), under the lens of moderate constructivism, the real meaning you can derive from the interview is not the arguments she makes, but what her arguments reveal about her cultish beliefs and mental state.
The Zeitgeist-left cannot have it both ways. They are either open to opposing views (as you seem to claim) and should publish the views of normal people, or they pretend to only care about truth as they see it and engage in dogmatic advocacy, despite lacking any special charism or expertise to sort the truth.
There is a kernel of truth in this termagant's screed. Progressive whites do in fact have a lot of guilt. But it stems not from "colonialism" (lol), but from other cultural degradation. Love has departed them with the loss of meaning, and so self-love goes with it.
"I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not."
Yet. Unless we spotlight it, it may end up that way.
I wish there were some way to make a wager on that prediction. I would bet my house that you're wrong. This is Bari Weiss being an alarmist. There is no chance someone like her will become the norm. I would say that about the right to be fair, but you guys nominated Donald Trump. He's now a normative Republican.
Hilarious!! They are very far from тАЬfree and open dialogue тАЬ. Trying booking a conservative at Yale, or any other institution of тАЬhigher learningтАЭ. What a load of crap
Do you know that Yale has conservative professors? In any event, most Republicans have decided that higher education is a tool of the devil. They've become anti-intellectuals. They hate everything the university stands for. That said, I'm sure they would welcome John McWhartor, or Kevin Williamson or others like them.
We don't need perfect "equity" in left vs right any more than we need perfect "equity" in black & white in the workforce. What we need is open debate. Both the Evangelical right as well as the Woke left want closed debate.
The fact is there *are* ideas that need not be platformed in universities. Flat earth, anti-vax or almost any religious fundamentalism in my opinion. But whatever crazy views a university decides to platform they *must* allow it to be criticized by honest opponents.
It's hard to figure out who's a good faith debater these days but tough crap. If you don't wanna' do the work then don't run a university.
Let me offer some very bleak comments. Before opposition to vaccines became a 'right-wing' cause, it was a 'left-wing' cause. At one time, the most famous anti-vaxxer was probably Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Of course, Sotomayor was (later) the most notable anti-vaxxer.
There is actually a funny quote about this. "And he said, sure, we just take out a map and put a pushpin everywhere there's a Whole Foods, and draw a circle around that area". Of course, the consequences are dire and very unfunny. See "Measles for the One Percent". Some time ago, I pointed out that Waldorf schools were hotbeds of anti-vax sentiment (and of course, infectious diseases). My correspondent was shocked by my negative comments about Waldorf schools. Sadly, I was right.
Oh I know. If I ran a school I wouldn't platform anything that's objectively false. Anti-vax, flat earth, holistic medicine etc. That said, some schools of course *do* platform these people. You can put Q Anon, MAGAism and WOKEism in these same buckets. So.....
If some portion of my faculty or student body wanted to have an anti-vaxer, a MAGA liar or or WOKE racializer invited to campus, I'd only allow it *if* we had real, science based counter arguments to balance it.
Meanwhile, I'd tell most people to boycott the debate. Debating things that are functionally impossible is a waste of time.
Honestly I don't think all the Woke stuff is worthless. At lest X Kendi even knows that race is a construct. But most of their prescription is ideological garbage.
Honestly I have to stop reading articles like this. It just depresses me.
Let me offer a caveat here. As you can tell, I am not exactly an anti-vaxxer. Indeed, I predicted that Thimerosal would eventually be shown to harmless (in the amounts actually used). However, I do have a concern about vaccines. Not any specific vaccine (the supposed MMR/Autism link is BS). However, the number of childhood vaccines soared since WWII. Could the shear number of vaccines be having some (very hard to detect) adverse effect? I would not rule it out. I would also say that the alternatives are worse.
And there it is. Mr. "Don't Stereotype" is upset about stereotypes of his camp that are true, but happily peddles far more absurd stereotypes about the other camp.
You are simply saying what you need to say for lack of a better argument. How pathetic.
But it has to be consistent. If Yale is gonna' give this racist, (I'm a progressive liberal but trust me, this "Dr." is a full on bigoted racist), a platform, then they have to allow people like Charles Murray to speak. Who I don't agree with either, but he's not as batshit crazy as this woman.
Have you read Murray's books? If so what parts do you disagree with? I'm only asking because most critics of him have never actually read his books. For the record I've read only 3.
I haven't. I heard the entire interview he did with Sam Harris a few years back. I think he's an honest broker but there was one point in the conversation where Sam said, "How do you determine who's 'black' in your studies". To which Charles said "They self identify". I think think *that's* an area that needs more study! Could identifying as an "oppressed minority" effect how you take IQ tests?
My personal take is that race as we know it is 100% a construct. Doesn't mean there aren't genetic differences. And perfect "equity" will never be achieved no matter how "level" you make the playing field. But take the whole SAT thing. Here in NYC there's 3 elite public schools that 9th graders have to take an SHSAT test for. (Sort of a high school SAT). The WOKE mob was all up in arms because something like only 8 black or latino kids got in last year out of hundreds of spaces. Now even if Murray was 100% right about IQ that wouldn't explain such a deep divide.
So it must be something else. Culture etc. Well our "racial cultures" come from our segregationist history so I agree with the mob that racism is the basis. But the cure is not abolishing "merit" tests. And the thinking of nuts like this "Dr" just increase segregation.
That's my 2 cents on the issue. The kids aren't totally wrong about the diagnosis. But the cure they're suggesting is poison. Race "realism" isn't the answer either.
The answer is erasing all race. I don't identify "racially" any more. No one should.
I heard that interview with Sam Harris and my issue with Murray was touched on there. It was 'why?' In the Bell Curve why did you feel like you had to go down that path the way you did. He could have left it alone. I mean after all inter group differences are higher than intra group. First borns tend to do better ( in IQ test) than all others for instance and you can explain a lot of that by vocabulary and attention they grow up with. Groups change over time too ( eastern European jews were well below the average IQ when they first came to America and now are well above). It is clearly cultural and that has been demonstrated by many. Read Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals for example.
I read Losing Ground as a youngster and it was very eye opening just like "Coming Apart" is too. I recommend them highly.
I just left NYC by the way and all my kids were in the specialized schools starting in K and through high school. I'm horrified as to how they want to dismantle the programs. And it's because it is way easier to do that than to improve K-5 citywide. It's a disgrace.
JF, "eastern European jews were well below the average IQ when they first came to America and now are well above". In a word, no. Eastern European Jew always tested high on IQ tests from the very beginning.
The idea that they (eastern European Jews) got low scores was just nonsense spouted by Stephen Gould. Of course, he was shown to be a compulsive liar after he died. See тАЬScientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism ClaimтАЭ in the NYT
He also lied about Jewish IQs and the role of IQ testing in the 1920s. He claimed that Professor Goddard (falsely) proved that immigrants had low IQs and this claim was used to promote immigration restrictions.
The truth is utterly different. In 1927, he (Goddard) supervised a Masters thesis entitled The Intelligence of Jews compared with Non-Jews, which was published by Ohio State University Press. In his introduction, Goddard said that it тАЬproved that Jews are more intelligent than Gentiles and his conclusion was substantiated by the constant persecution of the Jews, for we are seldom jealous of our inferiorsтАЭ.
Yup! Why isn't AOC talking about the lower schools??!! THAT'S where the problem is. I agree 100%.
And while the social justice crowd talks about the problems with police unions, which is indeed a problem, they refuse to talk about the problems with teachers unions. I've read some good arguments for abolishing all municipal unions. Unions make sense with for profit companies. They don't make sense for publicly owned organizations. But that's a longer discussion.
I'm voting for Yang for Mayor. He's not a MAGA or a WOKE. He's an actual free thinker. I hope.
I don't think this psychiatrist is anywhere near the norm. I think Bari is trying to make people like you think this is typical. It's not. Most people are not anywhere near this belligerent. It's the equivalent of a liberal taking someone like the leader of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers and holding them up as typical conservatives. I also don't think most people like to over generalize everything the way she does. Most people see people as individuals first.
The ideas of the psychiatrist are absolutely the ideas of the elite (Academia, K-12 education, government, the military, the FBI, the CIA, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporations, the media, Hollywood. NGOs, etc.). Do ordinary Americans agree? Probably not. Do their opinions count? Probably not.
f you read the article, you will realize this story is part of a series spotlighting the effects a particularly ideology is having in the field of medicine (a field that, by the way, thrives on objectivity and humanism). We all know the Dr is a radical, our issue is that the specific radical ideology she trained under (it is in her bio) has been allowed to promulgate almost unchallenged in academic institutions under the guise of justice and inclusion. I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but there shouldnтАЩt be any double standards when radicals are given a platform to spew vitriol, should there?
The entire point of CRT (which "this psychiatrist" exemplifies) is to herd and 'otherize.' Our elite overseers have identified it as the ideal divide and conquer mechanism (numerically, emotionally, "intellectually" etc ) that they need in the early 21st C to hold on to power as the heat gets turned up on them. This deranged line of thinking is currently right up against the exponential hundredth monkey, and regardless of your noble untaintedness...it's still coming for you. Because baby, you were born "that" way. But mostly because it appears that you will never see the big picture until it's too late.
She is absolutely typical of the ruling elite (Media, Hollywood, K-12 education, Universities, government, the military, NGOs, corporations, Tech, Wall Street, etc.). Do ordinary Americans buy into this BS? No. Does the ruling elite? Yes.
A psychiatrist is aware of the power of inflammatory speech to incite passionate response. Her words were not brave. They did not reveal forbidden inner thoughts. The words presented reveal a sociopathic narcissist. Her degrees are meaningless, Her words express her lack of moral values and restraint. She is not rare, and those who share her lack of values are no longer hiding their violent desires.
I do think of most as individuals. Bari is not attempting to make us lesser beings think this is typical. We see with clear eyes, and the increasing numbers of elites, I cannot call them intellectual, who are violent and belligerent.
When the Proud Boys are getting tenure at prestigious universities and teaching their dogma without restraint under conditions in which any criticism costs the critic his career, then you can make that comparison. When the federal government is mandating that their dogma be part of the curriculum at every public school, and a large majority of Republicans approve of the politicians responsible and refuse to criticize the policy, then you can make that comparison.
True. But the problem becomes giving important forums and platforms to people who are off the deep end, regardless of whether that is the right or left deep end of the pool.
Does the average American think like Aruna Khilanani? No. Does the average black, brown, or immigrant American think like Aruna Khilanani? No. Does the average person at Yale think like Aruna Khilanani. Probably yes.
The sad truth is the her kind of thinking is not that common, but rules all of the Media, Hollywood, K-2 education, Universities, government, the military, NGOs, corporations, Tech, Wall Street, etc. In other words, it is a dominant elite ideology irrespective of whether most Americans agree or not.
"IтАЩve heard from doctors whoтАЩve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) IтАЩve heard from doctors whoтАЩve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. IтАЩve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.
Some of these doctors say that there is a тАЬpurgeтАЭ underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.
тАЬPeople are afraid to speak honestly,тАЭ said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. тАЬItтАЩs like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.тАЭ If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.
When doctors do speak out, shared another, тАЬthe reaction is savage. And you better be tenured and you better have very thick skin.тАЭ
тАЬWeтАЩre afraid of what's happening to other people happening to us,тАЭ a doctor on the West Coast told me. тАЬWe are seeing people being fired. We are seeing people's reputations being sullied. There are members of our group who say, тАШI will be asked to leave a board. I will endanger the work of the nonprofit that I lead if this comes out.тАЩ People are at risk of being totally marginalized and having to leave their institutions.тАЭ"
Are doctors well-educated? I would tend to say yes. Has the 'woke' ideology taken over medicine. Obviously, yes. Has the 'woke' ideology taken over ordinary Americans. Generally, no. The elite/public schism is vast.
MM, Sorry but I have facts. Let's try something related. Prop 16 in California. Literally the entire California establishment (Harris, Feinstein, Newson, almost every newspaper, Twitter, Facebook, United Airlines and PG&E, the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco 49ers, etc.) supported Prop. 16. Only the people were opposed.
The people running Yale couldn't imagine why anyone would object to a speech titled "The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind". Most Americans would find that deeply offensive. At Yale, it raised no eyebrows. The elite/public schism is vast.
Apparently, some of the Yale folks were aware that the speech would be objectionable to some people. By contrast, Aruna Khilanani has been highly critical of Yale for NOT releasing the video of her speech. Clearly, she can't imagine why anyone would object. Conversely, Yale allowed her speech to go forwards with the title (of her speech) unchanged. My guess is that Yale has a spectrum of folks ranging from extremist racist to merely typically racist.
This woman is in the avant guard pushing the envelope. The things she says today will become more common in the not too distant future. Her toxic message will filter down.
I wish I could wager with you on that. I don't think her methods are an effective method of persuasion at all. Most people recoil at gratuitous belligerence.
it doesn't matter if this is the norm or not. Point is, she's being allowed a platform at a prestigious university which indicates that hers is a credible voice and invites this type of insidious mindset to fester. I'm pretty savvy about what's typical, however I cannot help but be concerned that the fact we're discussing this in a public forum, indicates it's gone beyond closed doors, and has now reached wider circulation. That, in itself, is incredibly concerning.
if that's the case then I guess they would welcome a lecture by someone promoting blowing up the Capitol or white house or assassinating the president as just their commitment to an open dialogue.
Another person (Christina) makes the obvious point. Replace white with black, Asian, Jewish, etc. and Yale would never let her speak. So much for 'free and open dialogue'.
I doubt Yale would be committed to free and open dialogue if the subject of that talk had indeed been "The psychopathy of the Gay/Black/Asian Mind." And I think that's the point here. This woman is belligerent, crude, and offensive, and her kind of rhetoric is usually confined to fringe websites, but since the subject of her vitriol is the "Oppressor Class" aka white people, then she is allowed a platform at an Ivy league school. It's hypocrisy at its most blatant, and I find it deeply disheartening that anyone gives credence to such ineloquent drivel. But of course the good doctor would probably just claim that is me being a defensive white woman, not just a person who happens to respect the virtues of civil discourse.
Do you think there's a difference between the ruling class making fun of the peasants, and the peasants making fun of the ruling class? It seems to me that one is understandable and the other is morally obtuse, if not outright sick. At least that's the way I see it.
I wonder though, morally obtuse or understandable, where does the commitment to free and open dialogue end? Does it end at morally obtuse? It seems regardless of where our thoughts, beliefs and experiences bring us, being committed to free and open dialogue would mean you'd allow all views to be expressed. In my mind, this idea of open dialogue gives us an opportunity to get an understanding of different views, we get to decide what we agree or disagree with. I personally found myself disagreeing with a lot of what was said in this interview - but understanding in a small way how it developed simply because I had personal experiences as a child that left me with a lot of resentment that almost destroyed my life.
As a society, wouldn't that be the best we can do when it comes to living within a community made up of folks we completely disagree with? Does hearing all the views we are willing to open our mind up to leave us better positioned for civility? It just doesn't seem free an open dialogue would silence one side of the conversation. Silencing one side seems like indoctrination not a forum for encouraging individual thought. If you are going to have the conversation, should everyone be allowed to speak (if we are saying free and open dialogue)?
I do not subscribe to the idea that skin color can be used to draw conclusions about folks in any way. That idea alone seems to be, in my mind, the root of racism.
I like this. What the Dr. said was ugly but it was honest. And, as a white woman, I don't take it personally because I know that a) I can't change her views (nor do I wish to) and b) she doesn't get to define me. Maybe in her own head, but certainly not in mine.
Whatever people say about you, you don't have to own it or even take it seriously. It's from their experience, their journey. I can live with some people hating me based on stereotyping and not be bothered. The world is large enough to avoid most of the extremely enraged types.
That said, if these views are codified into policy or law, then it becomes personal and I would fight it.
JDF, Voltaire never said it (but probably did think it). The actual quote is from Kevin A. Strom (1993). From the Guardian "The quote is "not un-Voltarian" said Paul Gibbard, a professor at the University of Western Australia and a researcher at the Voltaire Foundation at the University of Oxford in England, in an interview with The Guardian.". Note that many famous quotes are not real. The most famous quote from Truman (if you can't stand the heat) is not actually from Truman. The quote from Napoleon (Let China Sleep, For When She Wakes, She Will Shake The World) is not actually from Napoleon.
I think what's "morally obtuse" is telling people you'd like to shoot them in the head,especially given the soaring rate of gun violence today. And it concerns me that anyone would think this is just a funny joke. This is how violence gets normalized.
Of course. Her statement is morally offensive on its face. But obviously she's just being open and honest about deepest feelings. She sees value in that. And she seems to be completely aware that these are dark fantasies, and she's choosing not ignoring them. She's daring to examine them in the full light of reason. I think that's kind of the point of quality psychiatry.
As a psychiatrist, she took full advantage of an unintended opportunity to indoctrinate young minds into her sick way of thinking and "problem solving". (ie White people are the problem, therefore we must kill them.)
Just a cursory glance at her personal, online videos/tweets/Instagram posts, you learn that she is not joking about her white hate. In fact, she has chosen to use her platform to forge alliances based upon hate instead of improving mental health & promoting healing. At what point do we- as a civilized & evolved society- take her statements of wanting to kill white people seriously? As evidenced by the comments on her posts, damage has been done. For those who share her twisted viewpoint, she is now revered as an esteemed doctor AND "Speaker at Yale".
I donтАЩt agree with censorship. It is important that we can talk our differences out so that we can better understand/tolerate one another. However, her rant seemed better suited for a one on one session with her own psychiatrist. It's not that she can't have these thoughts and feelings. It's how she chose to express them to a group of students that is concerning. At no point does she speak of healing. At no point does she proffer a solution outside of blowing some white personтАЩs brains out. Is this a good teacher? Is this even a good doctor???
It is a delusion to think that she was innocently exploring her dark fantasies. And, even if that were the case, this was not the right platform without another psychiatrist in the room to help the students muddle through her myriad of issues.
The stable adults in the room need to rebuke her statements and classify them as hate speech. This is a very manipulative woman. She understands her audience perfectly. She obviously has a lot of anger issues to work through. Her unhinged emotional state doesn't really seem appropriate for her to continue practicing as a psychiatrist at this time. I hope that a review board will look into this and take appropriate action. I also hope that she gets the help she needs, particularly before she has literal blood on her hands.
Matt, sincerely, IтАЩm glad you post on this substack. I think you are completely full of shit, but these conversations would be dead boring without you. Have a great weekend, noble gadfly.
I do not find her behavior understandable because she is not "making fun" of anything, she is very seriously making insanely generalized and hateful statements.
And what I think is morally obtuse is that you're equating being white with being the "ruling class", and being anything else with being a "peasant".
In a country of over 330 million people, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of us, white or otherwise, are not members of the "ruling class."
I am not denying the existence of racism or the fact that race or ethnicity can sometimes, in various circumstances, be to one's benefit or detriment. But taking a genetic characteristic and reducing a person's entire existence into a category based on that is the very definition of racism- or at least it was until CRT happened and I am sure the definition is now more aligned with the new ideology of "only white people are racist."
It's a metaphor. Don't take it too literally. I understand Black people making fun of white people, and being angry at White people generically speaking. I do not understand White people mocking or being angry at Black people generically. That's because I do believe there is White privilege and institutionalized racism in America. I don't think you can compare the two on the same moral plane.
All of the richest ethnic groups in America are non-white. Jews earn (considerably) more than non-Jews. In WWII, Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps. By 1966, they were more successful than whites. 'White privilege' is just a bunch of PC BS.
You understand that that belief is just that - a belief. Not a truth. Not objective. And it can be challenged. It will be challenged. And thatтАЩs because multiple perspectives exist in this world
The sanitation worker who collected my garbage this morning is a white male. Tell me, Matt, do you categorize him as a peasant or a member of the ruling class?
Oh, I think she is trying to play to some people's fears and prejudices. Whether that is for getting attention to sell subscriptions, or if there's a political motive behind it, or both, I don't know. But she is getting the reaction she was hoping for: horror and outrage.
So, do you believe Yale should give the seal of approval to a woman who declared she'd like to shoot people in the head? What kind of "safe space" is that?
MM, Of course Yale gave their "seal of approval" when they allowed the crazy lady to speak. The title of her speech didn't raise any eyebrows as far as they were concerned. It was just a normal way of thinking for them.
She's has a doctorate and she's a professional psychiatrist. I think that qualifies her as a serious academic. And I think that's where the bar should be set. Not that one must have a doctorate to speak at Yale, but generally they should reserve their stage for serious thinkers. And I for one, am glad I read that interview. I think there is value in it, in the sense of whether or not a social filter is a good thing or a bad thing. That's a damn good topic of conversation.
Sure, Matt, we should talk about social filters and how useful they are. I am all for genuine conversations and for exploring topics that are controversial. However, I am NOT for double standards.
MM, I have made this point before... However, she does not claim to have a doctorate. I think their is value in the speeches of Nazis and they should be allowed to speak at Yale. How about you? She was/is a disgusting racist and you are defending her.
A "serious academic" who proudly says she wants to shoot people in the head. But you gave her a pass because this "serious academic" was only joking. There's something seriously off-kilter with that line of thought.
And I think he was brilliant at using language to manipulate the thoughts of human beings. He was on the level of a Machiaveli. And he was heartless and evil.
They don't invite just anyone off the street. They specifically invited her and undoubtedly paid her an honorarium. She'll be able to put this on her cv for the rest of her life. Yale University. It's a seal of approval. Boola boola.
Testing your hypothesis: Donald J. Trump is now one of only 44 people to have held the office of President of the United States. Do you think Yale, as presently managed, will ever consider giving him the ability to "speak his mind?"
MM, That's really shocking. I mean he never showed the intellectualism of "I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person". Compared to her, DJT is gigantic intellect.
If you reduce her to that statement, then of course she wouldn't qualify as an intellectual. I actually think she explained that pretty well. She examined her deep thoughts openly and didn't repress them. And I think she's saying that there can be value in that. It's actually admirable on some level. And DJT has never explored and examined and analyzed a deep or original thought in his entire life. He thinks purely on a gut, primitive level.
It's a crying shame. A few years ago, Matt mistook Chairman's Mao's Little Red Book for a pizza, ate the whole book in one sitting, and hasn't been the same since.
I hope so. We live on an Island. We used to think that too, that we were insulated, but this type of crap arrived anyways. We pick our battles about what we need to get upset at. Indoctrinating impressionable children in the classroom is where I get involved. All the best to you and your daughter. :-)
she doesn't have to be on the internet to be indoctrinated with these beliefs. She'll get plenty of that in her school, hearing stuff from her friends and in her friends' home. The stuff comes at our kids regardless of if we want it to or not so best our kids have lots of knowledge to combat it. Exposure is good, but being informed is even better. And that starts at home.
It also thoroughly confuses them and makes them angry. The white kids are admonished and instructed to hate themselves and their families, always and forever. The black kids are encouraged to embrace an angry, demanding and forever victimhood, always and forever. Deep down, they all know this is wrong and that they are all being played as pawns, but every grown up they know seems to be in on the game to one degree or another. It's a living nightmare. Kind of like a new level of hell.
Well said, Ama. It's fine for schools to have speakers from all points of view, provided it's a two-way street. (Which of course it's not lately in the Ivy Leagues.)
Beyond that, all credit to Bari and Katie for covering this, and to Katie for this very well-conducted interview. No interruptions, or shouting or lecturing, or talking over the subject. This is why I subscribe.
And credit to Khilalani for doing the interview. She has to know her views won't gain many takers here. At least she's honest.
She further explains herself here. I think it's worth watching: https://youtu.be/o20tk-QrZiE
I agree with you Anna. Her statement that she prefers conservatives to the breed of fake antiracist whites struck me as refreshing. She's so deep into her own issues that depicting her as a CRT demon seems overblown. I hope the food service staff at Yale hides all of the sharp knives when she's anywhere near.
Wow...scary to think the outliers get gigs at Yale. Maybe there is something to this psychopath thing after all.
Technically, I donтАЩt have much of a problem with her actually making those arguments as IтАФlike you, and probably most reasonable individualsтАФam aware that mental health problems do not discriminate based on race. However, I do have a issue with her 1) still holding a profesional license 2) being the guest at a major academic institution while making those statements and having that institution sweep all of it under the rug.
I also have a BIG issue with people who embrace an ideology not too dissimilar to what the good Dr is spewing, and do so under the guise of righteousness and justice.
Thank you for your wise words, Anna.
Good luck with that.
Like I said, the doctor is basically a female Donald trump. The problem lies with Yale who allowed her to speak her racist views like thatтАЩs normal
Anna, the problem is that Aruna Khilanani lives in a world where the vilest, most extreme forms of racial bigotry are normal. Think of upper-class whites in Selma, AL in 1910. Actually, they would be racial moderates compared to Aruna Khilanani. She exists in a world where the crassest forms of racism are as commonplace as water is to a fish or air is to a bird.
Go to her Twitter feed. You can actually find people complaining the that video hasn't been released. Of course, Aruna Khilanani agrees with them. They clearly cannot imagine why anyone would object to the video or its contents.
Twitter is not the 'real world'. However, Twitter is where (sometimes at least) speak their true (and very ugly) feelings. Go to Aruna Khilanani Twitter page. Her racism and bigotry are right up front.
I agree. I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not. It's the equivalent of holding up the leaders of Proud Boys or Oath keepers as typical of conservativesтАУтАУpeople with no social filter spouting their extreme views. And I get the distinct feeling that the psychiatrist approves of having no social filter. And in some ways she might have a point.
Like you, as an adult, I don't mind these kinds of conversations. They can make you think and question your assumptions more deeply, and that's the point of higher ed. And I think the questioner did a good job of listening and asking questions in a composed and non-defensive way. And good for Yale for being a true champion of free and open dialogue, as all institutions of higher ed ought to be. I'm actually glad a I read that interview. I found it insightful in terms how some people see the world.
MM, "I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not.". Actually, it is. Of course, most of the DIE folks avoid publicly fantasying about murder. However, the radical, racial hatred is near universal. Check out "A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction". It's dripping with crude racism. It has also been adopted by the state of California as a 'standard'.
https://www.thefire.org/schools/yale-university/
When the Proud Boys are getting tenure at prestigious universities and teaching their dogma without restraint under conditions in which any criticism costs the critic his career, then you can make that comparison. When the federal government is mandating that their dogma be part of the curriculum at every public school, and a large majority of Republicans approve of the politicians responsible and refuse to criticize the policy, then you can make that comparison.
Yes, very insightful how a head case professional grievance-monger expresses her racial resentments. Ironically (perhaps), under the lens of moderate constructivism, the real meaning you can derive from the interview is not the arguments she makes, but what her arguments reveal about her cultish beliefs and mental state.
The Zeitgeist-left cannot have it both ways. They are either open to opposing views (as you seem to claim) and should publish the views of normal people, or they pretend to only care about truth as they see it and engage in dogmatic advocacy, despite lacking any special charism or expertise to sort the truth.
There is a kernel of truth in this termagant's screed. Progressive whites do in fact have a lot of guilt. But it stems not from "colonialism" (lol), but from other cultural degradation. Love has departed them with the loss of meaning, and so self-love goes with it.
Well, I found it about as insightful as having a conversation with the schizophrenic standing on the street corner yelling at the clouds.
"I feel like Bari Weiss is trying to use this as a way of convincing her audience that this is typical of how DEI leaders talk about these issues, which it most certainly is not."
Yet. Unless we spotlight it, it may end up that way.
I wish there were some way to make a wager on that prediction. I would bet my house that you're wrong. This is Bari Weiss being an alarmist. There is no chance someone like her will become the norm. I would say that about the right to be fair, but you guys nominated Donald Trump. He's now a normative Republican.
DonтАЩt assume everyone here is a republican/conservative/ DT supporter. Some of us just hate double standards.
Hilarious!! They are very far from тАЬfree and open dialogue тАЬ. Trying booking a conservative at Yale, or any other institution of тАЬhigher learningтАЭ. What a load of crap
Do you know that Yale has conservative professors? In any event, most Republicans have decided that higher education is a tool of the devil. They've become anti-intellectuals. They hate everything the university stands for. That said, I'm sure they would welcome John McWhartor, or Kevin Williamson or others like them.
J. Haidt has done various studies of academia. The left/right ratio is about 60:1. The level of diversity is shockingly low.
We don't need perfect "equity" in left vs right any more than we need perfect "equity" in black & white in the workforce. What we need is open debate. Both the Evangelical right as well as the Woke left want closed debate.
The fact is there *are* ideas that need not be platformed in universities. Flat earth, anti-vax or almost any religious fundamentalism in my opinion. But whatever crazy views a university decides to platform they *must* allow it to be criticized by honest opponents.
It's hard to figure out who's a good faith debater these days but tough crap. If you don't wanna' do the work then don't run a university.
Let me offer some very bleak comments. Before opposition to vaccines became a 'right-wing' cause, it was a 'left-wing' cause. At one time, the most famous anti-vaxxer was probably Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Of course, Sotomayor was (later) the most notable anti-vaxxer.
There is actually a funny quote about this. "And he said, sure, we just take out a map and put a pushpin everywhere there's a Whole Foods, and draw a circle around that area". Of course, the consequences are dire and very unfunny. See "Measles for the One Percent". Some time ago, I pointed out that Waldorf schools were hotbeds of anti-vax sentiment (and of course, infectious diseases). My correspondent was shocked by my negative comments about Waldorf schools. Sadly, I was right.
Oh I know. If I ran a school I wouldn't platform anything that's objectively false. Anti-vax, flat earth, holistic medicine etc. That said, some schools of course *do* platform these people. You can put Q Anon, MAGAism and WOKEism in these same buckets. So.....
If some portion of my faculty or student body wanted to have an anti-vaxer, a MAGA liar or or WOKE racializer invited to campus, I'd only allow it *if* we had real, science based counter arguments to balance it.
Meanwhile, I'd tell most people to boycott the debate. Debating things that are functionally impossible is a waste of time.
Honestly I don't think all the Woke stuff is worthless. At lest X Kendi even knows that race is a construct. But most of their prescription is ideological garbage.
Honestly I have to stop reading articles like this. It just depresses me.
Let me offer a caveat here. As you can tell, I am not exactly an anti-vaxxer. Indeed, I predicted that Thimerosal would eventually be shown to harmless (in the amounts actually used). However, I do have a concern about vaccines. Not any specific vaccine (the supposed MMR/Autism link is BS). However, the number of childhood vaccines soared since WWII. Could the shear number of vaccines be having some (very hard to detect) adverse effect? I would not rule it out. I would also say that the alternatives are worse.
I'm not a doctor. I do whatever the medical consensus is.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And there it is. Mr. "Don't Stereotype" is upset about stereotypes of his camp that are true, but happily peddles far more absurd stereotypes about the other camp.
You are simply saying what you need to say for lack of a better argument. How pathetic.
But it has to be consistent. If Yale is gonna' give this racist, (I'm a progressive liberal but trust me, this "Dr." is a full on bigoted racist), a platform, then they have to allow people like Charles Murray to speak. Who I don't agree with either, but he's not as batshit crazy as this woman.
Dr. Murray has a new book coming out next week I believe. It will cause quite an uproar and I can't wait to read it.
Have you read Murray's books? If so what parts do you disagree with? I'm only asking because most critics of him have never actually read his books. For the record I've read only 3.
I haven't. I heard the entire interview he did with Sam Harris a few years back. I think he's an honest broker but there was one point in the conversation where Sam said, "How do you determine who's 'black' in your studies". To which Charles said "They self identify". I think think *that's* an area that needs more study! Could identifying as an "oppressed minority" effect how you take IQ tests?
My personal take is that race as we know it is 100% a construct. Doesn't mean there aren't genetic differences. And perfect "equity" will never be achieved no matter how "level" you make the playing field. But take the whole SAT thing. Here in NYC there's 3 elite public schools that 9th graders have to take an SHSAT test for. (Sort of a high school SAT). The WOKE mob was all up in arms because something like only 8 black or latino kids got in last year out of hundreds of spaces. Now even if Murray was 100% right about IQ that wouldn't explain such a deep divide.
So it must be something else. Culture etc. Well our "racial cultures" come from our segregationist history so I agree with the mob that racism is the basis. But the cure is not abolishing "merit" tests. And the thinking of nuts like this "Dr" just increase segregation.
That's my 2 cents on the issue. The kids aren't totally wrong about the diagnosis. But the cure they're suggesting is poison. Race "realism" isn't the answer either.
The answer is erasing all race. I don't identify "racially" any more. No one should.
Thanks for coming to my TED.....whatever. ;)
I heard that interview with Sam Harris and my issue with Murray was touched on there. It was 'why?' In the Bell Curve why did you feel like you had to go down that path the way you did. He could have left it alone. I mean after all inter group differences are higher than intra group. First borns tend to do better ( in IQ test) than all others for instance and you can explain a lot of that by vocabulary and attention they grow up with. Groups change over time too ( eastern European jews were well below the average IQ when they first came to America and now are well above). It is clearly cultural and that has been demonstrated by many. Read Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals for example.
I read Losing Ground as a youngster and it was very eye opening just like "Coming Apart" is too. I recommend them highly.
I just left NYC by the way and all my kids were in the specialized schools starting in K and through high school. I'm horrified as to how they want to dismantle the programs. And it's because it is way easier to do that than to improve K-5 citywide. It's a disgrace.
JF, "eastern European jews were well below the average IQ when they first came to America and now are well above". In a word, no. Eastern European Jew always tested high on IQ tests from the very beginning.
The idea that they (eastern European Jews) got low scores was just nonsense spouted by Stephen Gould. Of course, he was shown to be a compulsive liar after he died. See тАЬScientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism ClaimтАЭ in the NYT
He also lied about Jewish IQs and the role of IQ testing in the 1920s. He claimed that Professor Goddard (falsely) proved that immigrants had low IQs and this claim was used to promote immigration restrictions.
The truth is utterly different. In 1927, he (Goddard) supervised a Masters thesis entitled The Intelligence of Jews compared with Non-Jews, which was published by Ohio State University Press. In his introduction, Goddard said that it тАЬproved that Jews are more intelligent than Gentiles and his conclusion was substantiated by the constant persecution of the Jews, for we are seldom jealous of our inferiorsтАЭ.
Yup! Why isn't AOC talking about the lower schools??!! THAT'S where the problem is. I agree 100%.
And while the social justice crowd talks about the problems with police unions, which is indeed a problem, they refuse to talk about the problems with teachers unions. I've read some good arguments for abolishing all municipal unions. Unions make sense with for profit companies. They don't make sense for publicly owned organizations. But that's a longer discussion.
I'm voting for Yang for Mayor. He's not a MAGA or a WOKE. He's an actual free thinker. I hope.
He has statistical evidence. He also doesnтАЩt fantasize about homicide. She is very sick
the problem though is that this type of mentality *is* becoming the norm. And it's up to all of us to stop it. https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-fight-critical-race-theory
Lot a people still insulated, usually by money.
I don't think this psychiatrist is anywhere near the norm. I think Bari is trying to make people like you think this is typical. It's not. Most people are not anywhere near this belligerent. It's the equivalent of a liberal taking someone like the leader of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers and holding them up as typical conservatives. I also don't think most people like to over generalize everything the way she does. Most people see people as individuals first.
The ideas of the psychiatrist are absolutely the ideas of the elite (Academia, K-12 education, government, the military, the FBI, the CIA, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporations, the media, Hollywood. NGOs, etc.). Do ordinary Americans agree? Probably not. Do their opinions count? Probably not.
And yet she had a platform at Yale! So fringe soon becomes mainstream and that's terrifying.
f you read the article, you will realize this story is part of a series spotlighting the effects a particularly ideology is having in the field of medicine (a field that, by the way, thrives on objectivity and humanism). We all know the Dr is a radical, our issue is that the specific radical ideology she trained under (it is in her bio) has been allowed to promulgate almost unchallenged in academic institutions under the guise of justice and inclusion. I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but there shouldnтАЩt be any double standards when radicals are given a platform to spew vitriol, should there?
The entire point of CRT (which "this psychiatrist" exemplifies) is to herd and 'otherize.' Our elite overseers have identified it as the ideal divide and conquer mechanism (numerically, emotionally, "intellectually" etc ) that they need in the early 21st C to hold on to power as the heat gets turned up on them. This deranged line of thinking is currently right up against the exponential hundredth monkey, and regardless of your noble untaintedness...it's still coming for you. Because baby, you were born "that" way. But mostly because it appears that you will never see the big picture until it's too late.
She is absolutely typical of the ruling elite (Media, Hollywood, K-12 education, Universities, government, the military, NGOs, corporations, Tech, Wall Street, etc.). Do ordinary Americans buy into this BS? No. Does the ruling elite? Yes.
They donтАЩt buy into it, they employ it for their own purposes.
A psychiatrist is aware of the power of inflammatory speech to incite passionate response. Her words were not brave. They did not reveal forbidden inner thoughts. The words presented reveal a sociopathic narcissist. Her degrees are meaningless, Her words express her lack of moral values and restraint. She is not rare, and those who share her lack of values are no longer hiding their violent desires.
I do think of most as individuals. Bari is not attempting to make us lesser beings think this is typical. We see with clear eyes, and the increasing numbers of elites, I cannot call them intellectual, who are violent and belligerent.
If you don't think this crap isn't seriously infecting young people, you definitely haven't been paying attention.
When the Proud Boys are getting tenure at prestigious universities and teaching their dogma without restraint under conditions in which any criticism costs the critic his career, then you can make that comparison. When the federal government is mandating that their dogma be part of the curriculum at every public school, and a large majority of Republicans approve of the politicians responsible and refuse to criticize the policy, then you can make that comparison.
True. But the problem becomes giving important forums and platforms to people who are off the deep end, regardless of whether that is the right or left deep end of the pool.
Does the average American think like Aruna Khilanani? No. Does the average black, brown, or immigrant American think like Aruna Khilanani? No. Does the average person at Yale think like Aruna Khilanani. Probably yes.
The sad truth is the her kind of thinking is not that common, but rules all of the Media, Hollywood, K-2 education, Universities, government, the military, NGOs, corporations, Tech, Wall Street, etc. In other words, it is a dominant elite ideology irrespective of whether most Americans agree or not.
Oh nonsense. You have cartoon villain imagery of the well-educated playing out in your mind.
The following is a quote from Katie Herzog
"IтАЩve heard from doctors whoтАЩve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) IтАЩve heard from doctors whoтАЩve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. IтАЩve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.
Some of these doctors say that there is a тАЬpurgeтАЭ underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.
тАЬPeople are afraid to speak honestly,тАЭ said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. тАЬItтАЩs like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.тАЭ If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.
When doctors do speak out, shared another, тАЬthe reaction is savage. And you better be tenured and you better have very thick skin.тАЭ
тАЬWeтАЩre afraid of what's happening to other people happening to us,тАЭ a doctor on the West Coast told me. тАЬWe are seeing people being fired. We are seeing people's reputations being sullied. There are members of our group who say, тАШI will be asked to leave a board. I will endanger the work of the nonprofit that I lead if this comes out.тАЩ People are at risk of being totally marginalized and having to leave their institutions.тАЭ"
Are doctors well-educated? I would tend to say yes. Has the 'woke' ideology taken over medicine. Obviously, yes. Has the 'woke' ideology taken over ordinary Americans. Generally, no. The elite/public schism is vast.
MM, Sorry but I have facts. Let's try something related. Prop 16 in California. Literally the entire California establishment (Harris, Feinstein, Newson, almost every newspaper, Twitter, Facebook, United Airlines and PG&E, the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco 49ers, etc.) supported Prop. 16. Only the people were opposed.
The people running Yale couldn't imagine why anyone would object to a speech titled "The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind". Most Americans would find that deeply offensive. At Yale, it raised no eyebrows. The elite/public schism is vast.
Apparently, some of the Yale folks were aware that the speech would be objectionable to some people. By contrast, Aruna Khilanani has been highly critical of Yale for NOT releasing the video of her speech. Clearly, she can't imagine why anyone would object. Conversely, Yale allowed her speech to go forwards with the title (of her speech) unchanged. My guess is that Yale has a spectrum of folks ranging from extremist racist to merely typically racist.
Umm she lectured at Yale. Ever heard of it?
This woman is in the avant guard pushing the envelope. The things she says today will become more common in the not too distant future. Her toxic message will filter down.
Spot on. And both up and down. But also nuts like her can eventually trigger or already triggered the beginning of the end for this crap.
I wish I could wager with you on that. I don't think her methods are an effective method of persuasion at all. Most people recoil at gratuitous belligerence.
Silence is violence.
it doesn't matter if this is the norm or not. Point is, she's being allowed a platform at a prestigious university which indicates that hers is a credible voice and invites this type of insidious mindset to fester. I'm pretty savvy about what's typical, however I cannot help but be concerned that the fact we're discussing this in a public forum, indicates it's gone beyond closed doors, and has now reached wider circulation. That, in itself, is incredibly concerning.
EXACTLY Tara Houle!
I think this is an example of Yale's commitment to free and open dialogue.
if that's the case then I guess they would welcome a lecture by someone promoting blowing up the Capitol or white house or assassinating the president as just their commitment to an open dialogue.
No, it's the Yale School of Medicine's VERY BAD JUDGEMENT about who to invite to enlighten the student body. This woman is borderline stable.
Tell that to the raging mobs in Portland and Minneapolis.
They all need a spanking : )
Another person (Christina) makes the obvious point. Replace white with black, Asian, Jewish, etc. and Yale would never let her speak. So much for 'free and open dialogue'.
Call me when the Boogaloo Bois get top billing at a Yale lecture series.
Maybe if they changed their name to the Boolaboola Bois?
I think Yale should hold the bar higherтАУтАУon the level of professional intellectuals.
MM, Nice idea... But the actual standard is 'The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind'.
I doubt Yale would be committed to free and open dialogue if the subject of that talk had indeed been "The psychopathy of the Gay/Black/Asian Mind." And I think that's the point here. This woman is belligerent, crude, and offensive, and her kind of rhetoric is usually confined to fringe websites, but since the subject of her vitriol is the "Oppressor Class" aka white people, then she is allowed a platform at an Ivy league school. It's hypocrisy at its most blatant, and I find it deeply disheartening that anyone gives credence to such ineloquent drivel. But of course the good doctor would probably just claim that is me being a defensive white woman, not just a person who happens to respect the virtues of civil discourse.
Do you think there's a difference between the ruling class making fun of the peasants, and the peasants making fun of the ruling class? It seems to me that one is understandable and the other is morally obtuse, if not outright sick. At least that's the way I see it.
Imagine Oprah Winfrey and the guy who put his feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk. Which is a member of the ruling class again? Or am I being too obtuse?
I wonder though, morally obtuse or understandable, where does the commitment to free and open dialogue end? Does it end at morally obtuse? It seems regardless of where our thoughts, beliefs and experiences bring us, being committed to free and open dialogue would mean you'd allow all views to be expressed. In my mind, this idea of open dialogue gives us an opportunity to get an understanding of different views, we get to decide what we agree or disagree with. I personally found myself disagreeing with a lot of what was said in this interview - but understanding in a small way how it developed simply because I had personal experiences as a child that left me with a lot of resentment that almost destroyed my life.
As a society, wouldn't that be the best we can do when it comes to living within a community made up of folks we completely disagree with? Does hearing all the views we are willing to open our mind up to leave us better positioned for civility? It just doesn't seem free an open dialogue would silence one side of the conversation. Silencing one side seems like indoctrination not a forum for encouraging individual thought. If you are going to have the conversation, should everyone be allowed to speak (if we are saying free and open dialogue)?
I do not subscribe to the idea that skin color can be used to draw conclusions about folks in any way. That idea alone seems to be, in my mind, the root of racism.
I like this. What the Dr. said was ugly but it was honest. And, as a white woman, I don't take it personally because I know that a) I can't change her views (nor do I wish to) and b) she doesn't get to define me. Maybe in her own head, but certainly not in mine.
Whatever people say about you, you don't have to own it or even take it seriously. It's from their experience, their journey. I can live with some people hating me based on stereotyping and not be bothered. The world is large enough to avoid most of the extremely enraged types.
That said, if these views are codified into policy or law, then it becomes personal and I would fight it.
What do you get if you replace 'Jew' with 'white' in Mein Kampf? Aruna Khilanani preaching CRT of course.
Who is the Ruling Class?
тАЬIf you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.тАЭ - Voltaire
JDF, Voltaire never said it (but probably did think it). The actual quote is from Kevin A. Strom (1993). From the Guardian "The quote is "not un-Voltarian" said Paul Gibbard, a professor at the University of Western Australia and a researcher at the Voltaire Foundation at the University of Oxford in England, in an interview with The Guardian.". Note that many famous quotes are not real. The most famous quote from Truman (if you can't stand the heat) is not actually from Truman. The quote from Napoleon (Let China Sleep, For When She Wakes, She Will Shake The World) is not actually from Napoleon.
I think what's "morally obtuse" is telling people you'd like to shoot them in the head,especially given the soaring rate of gun violence today. And it concerns me that anyone would think this is just a funny joke. This is how violence gets normalized.
Of course. Her statement is morally offensive on its face. But obviously she's just being open and honest about deepest feelings. She sees value in that. And she seems to be completely aware that these are dark fantasies, and she's choosing not ignoring them. She's daring to examine them in the full light of reason. I think that's kind of the point of quality psychiatry.
As a psychiatrist, she took full advantage of an unintended opportunity to indoctrinate young minds into her sick way of thinking and "problem solving". (ie White people are the problem, therefore we must kill them.)
Just a cursory glance at her personal, online videos/tweets/Instagram posts, you learn that she is not joking about her white hate. In fact, she has chosen to use her platform to forge alliances based upon hate instead of improving mental health & promoting healing. At what point do we- as a civilized & evolved society- take her statements of wanting to kill white people seriously? As evidenced by the comments on her posts, damage has been done. For those who share her twisted viewpoint, she is now revered as an esteemed doctor AND "Speaker at Yale".
I donтАЩt agree with censorship. It is important that we can talk our differences out so that we can better understand/tolerate one another. However, her rant seemed better suited for a one on one session with her own psychiatrist. It's not that she can't have these thoughts and feelings. It's how she chose to express them to a group of students that is concerning. At no point does she speak of healing. At no point does she proffer a solution outside of blowing some white personтАЩs brains out. Is this a good teacher? Is this even a good doctor???
It is a delusion to think that she was innocently exploring her dark fantasies. And, even if that were the case, this was not the right platform without another psychiatrist in the room to help the students muddle through her myriad of issues.
The stable adults in the room need to rebuke her statements and classify them as hate speech. This is a very manipulative woman. She understands her audience perfectly. She obviously has a lot of anger issues to work through. Her unhinged emotional state doesn't really seem appropriate for her to continue practicing as a psychiatrist at this time. I hope that a review board will look into this and take appropriate action. I also hope that she gets the help she needs, particularly before she has literal blood on her hands.
LOL
Matt, sincerely, IтАЩm glad you post on this substack. I think you are completely full of shit, but these conversations would be dead boring without you. Have a great weekend, noble gadfly.
Props to you Bow Wow. Back at you.
I do not find her behavior understandable because she is not "making fun" of anything, she is very seriously making insanely generalized and hateful statements.
And what I think is morally obtuse is that you're equating being white with being the "ruling class", and being anything else with being a "peasant".
In a country of over 330 million people, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of us, white or otherwise, are not members of the "ruling class."
I am not denying the existence of racism or the fact that race or ethnicity can sometimes, in various circumstances, be to one's benefit or detriment. But taking a genetic characteristic and reducing a person's entire existence into a category based on that is the very definition of racism- or at least it was until CRT happened and I am sure the definition is now more aligned with the new ideology of "only white people are racist."
It's a metaphor. Don't take it too literally. I understand Black people making fun of white people, and being angry at White people generically speaking. I do not understand White people mocking or being angry at Black people generically. That's because I do believe there is White privilege and institutionalized racism in America. I don't think you can compare the two on the same moral plane.
There are lots of things to make fun of about other cultures. Period. LetтАЩs do it. Lighten up.
Oh, please.
All of the richest ethnic groups in America are non-white. Jews earn (considerably) more than non-Jews. In WWII, Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps. By 1966, they were more successful than whites. 'White privilege' is just a bunch of PC BS.
ItтАЩs the same line of propaganda that causes mass graves.
You understand that that belief is just that - a belief. Not a truth. Not objective. And it can be challenged. It will be challenged. And thatтАЩs because multiple perspectives exist in this world
So true, and if you're really lucky, the powers that be will support your particular perspective and actively censor your adversaries.
I think you've chugged down too much of that newfangled, holier than thou, woke Koolaid.
Oh, I though we were speaking seriously. Sorry.
The sanitation worker who collected my garbage this morning is a white male. Tell me, Matt, do you categorize him as a peasant or a member of the ruling class?
It's a metaphor. And for the record I'm a union painter. And yes, I see myself as a peasant, a member of the working class.
Exist??!! She lectured AT YALE!!!!!
People like this exist _and_ are being empowered by the establishment.
The proper reaction here is "oh s**t".
Oh, I think she is trying to play to some people's fears and prejudices. Whether that is for getting attention to sell subscriptions, or if there's a political motive behind it, or both, I don't know. But she is getting the reaction she was hoping for: horror and outrage.
Umm it is outrageous. And sick
So are you saying that no one should know about this?
She (Bari Weiss) is trying to raise the alarm about the insanity that has taken over the elite in the USA (and elsewhere). That's a public service.
So, do you believe Yale should give the seal of approval to a woman who declared she'd like to shoot people in the head? What kind of "safe space" is that?
Disgusting. Typical for Yale and the other racist IVIES
Yale did not give her their "seal of approval". They allowed her to speak her mind.
MM, Of course Yale gave their "seal of approval" when they allowed the crazy lady to speak. The title of her speech didn't raise any eyebrows as far as they were concerned. It was just a normal way of thinking for them.
Sounds like YALE soon realized she was a loony-toon by sitting on the the tape of the lecture....too little, too late...
That is a very big deal
She's has a doctorate and she's a professional psychiatrist. I think that qualifies her as a serious academic. And I think that's where the bar should be set. Not that one must have a doctorate to speak at Yale, but generally they should reserve their stage for serious thinkers. And I for one, am glad I read that interview. I think there is value in it, in the sense of whether or not a social filter is a good thing or a bad thing. That's a damn good topic of conversation.
Sure, Matt, we should talk about social filters and how useful they are. I am all for genuine conversations and for exploring topics that are controversial. However, I am NOT for double standards.
MM, I have made this point before... However, she does not claim to have a doctorate. I think their is value in the speeches of Nazis and they should be allowed to speak at Yale. How about you? She was/is a disgusting racist and you are defending her.
She might be a degreed-academic but she can also be mentally unstable.
A "serious academic" who proudly says she wants to shoot people in the head. But you gave her a pass because this "serious academic" was only joking. There's something seriously off-kilter with that line of thought.
Do you honestly think it's fair to reduce her and her entire career to that one statement?
Goebbels had a Doctorate too.
And I think he was brilliant at using language to manipulate the thoughts of human beings. He was on the level of a Machiaveli. And he was heartless and evil.
They don't invite just anyone off the street. They specifically invited her and undoubtedly paid her an honorarium. She'll be able to put this on her cv for the rest of her life. Yale University. It's a seal of approval. Boola boola.
She has a doctorate and a professional psychiatrist. I think that qualifies her to speak at Yale.
SheтАЩs a psychopath
MM, She does not claim to have a doctorate
Testing your hypothesis: Donald J. Trump is now one of only 44 people to have held the office of President of the United States. Do you think Yale, as presently managed, will ever consider giving him the ability to "speak his mind?"
No. And they shouldn't. He is not a serious academic. Indeed, he's an anti-intellectual and a gratuitous polemicist.
MM, That's really shocking. I mean he never showed the intellectualism of "I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person". Compared to her, DJT is gigantic intellect.
If you reduce her to that statement, then of course she wouldn't qualify as an intellectual. I actually think she explained that pretty well. She examined her deep thoughts openly and didn't repress them. And I think she's saying that there can be value in that. It's actually admirable on some level. And DJT has never explored and examined and analyzed a deep or original thought in his entire life. He thinks purely on a gut, primitive level.
You are an unvarnished political hack.
It's a crying shame. A few years ago, Matt mistook Chairman's Mao's Little Red Book for a pizza, ate the whole book in one sitting, and hasn't been the same since.
Funny
I hope so. We live on an Island. We used to think that too, that we were insulated, but this type of crap arrived anyways. We pick our battles about what we need to get upset at. Indoctrinating impressionable children in the classroom is where I get involved. All the best to you and your daughter. :-)
she doesn't have to be on the internet to be indoctrinated with these beliefs. She'll get plenty of that in her school, hearing stuff from her friends and in her friends' home. The stuff comes at our kids regardless of if we want it to or not so best our kids have lots of knowledge to combat it. Exposure is good, but being informed is even better. And that starts at home.
It also thoroughly confuses them and makes them angry. The white kids are admonished and instructed to hate themselves and their families, always and forever. The black kids are encouraged to embrace an angry, demanding and forever victimhood, always and forever. Deep down, they all know this is wrong and that they are all being played as pawns, but every grown up they know seems to be in on the game to one degree or another. It's a living nightmare. Kind of like a new level of hell.