Post: #1

Today during class I argued with a Professor who tried to attribute the cause of languages being lost "to white male privilege." I strongly disagreed and argue in favor of logistics reasons- schools lacking funds to teach other languages. She said no "it's white patriarchy trying to extinct all other dialects/languages' that are not the norm.

Being a minority myself I thought this was not a reasonable explanation.In fact, she incites racial conflict and anger between different ethnic groups by blaming the white man for everything.

Post: #2

The truth is that this society's dumbass Cultural Marxists always need a convenient scapegoat and a default enemy in order to justify their fight against fabricated "patriarchy" and perceived "injustice". It is a direct spawn of their deeply rooted self-victim complex. They feel that they must always have a common enemy for the advancement of their "cause" and when they don't have one they feel the need to invent one.

Post: #3

Never argue with the person who assigns your grade.

If you would have approached her during her office hours and told her you disagree with her and this is why, she would have respected you.

Doing it in front of the class is different. The end purpose of the class is to get an A. You'll need that A when it comes to Grad or medical school.

I leaned this the hard way when I got a C in a multicultural education class. I should have bit my pride.

Post: #4

And people pay to go to this shit?

Post: #5

Don't argue to their face about this crap. Luckily I go to a college that doesn't have professors like this in the philosophy department.

Strangely enough down South it's only the hyper liberals spouting that white male privledge garbage.

Post: #6

(07-02-2015 03:07 PM)Helium1 Wrote:  Today during class I argued with a Professor who tried to attribute the cause of languages being lost "to white male privilege." I strongly disagreed and argue in favor of logistics reasons- schools lacking funds to teach other languages. She said no "it's white patriarchy trying to extinct all other dialects/languages' that are not the norm.

Being a minority myself I thought this was not a reasonable explanation.In fact, she incites racial conflict and anger between different ethnic groups by blaming the white man for everything.

If that's the case then why did I hear "Hit 1 for English" when I called the IRS?

Languages are not lost because of white privilege. Language usually disappears because of assimilation or ease of understanding/speaking.

• My parents are from India and speak Punjabi.
• I was born and raised in UK and I speak English and I can understand Punjabi.
• If I have any kids in the future, I will speak to them in English, because that is the language I most comfortable in.
  

That’s one example of how languages can disappear.

Post: #7

I am learning not to argue with these people the hard way-getting's B's instead of A's. Schools are meant for you gain critical thinking skills-in theory-not to regurgitate the dominant discourse. After taking many humanities classes, I have come to realized that most of these people are servants of power.

Post: #8

Not too late to switch to an engineering major, my man

Post: #9

Linux is right. Fighting the good fight often ends up with some kind of wound. It's admirable to call her out on her shit, but just know there will be a price to pay for it.

To answer your question, "Why do liberals blame everything on white men?"

Liberalism = The Feminine

By definition the word "liberal" is to be loose, not strict, not precise, bend the rules, etc. It's the very opposite of the masculine.

Since America has been increasingly under the sway of "The Feminine" for the past 100 years, we are seeing things getting quite ugly. There's an old Sci-Fi movie about Amazon women who rule and the men are their slaves. That's the end game of The Feminine if they get their way.

I know most would shake their heads, laugh and say, "Never"

Post: #10

Because if you blame the Jews you get called and anti-semite, whatever that actually is. I think it means someone who disagrees with Zionism.

Post: #11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczyn...cial_views

Good explanation from an extremely intelligent man.

Post: #12

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...sto-1.html

Quote:FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. Hisfeelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

Basically he defined SJW before people understood what it was.

Post: #13

^^ Kind of amazing. Prescient.

Post: #14

(07-02-2015 03:07 PM)Helium1 Wrote:  Today during class I argued with a Professor who tried to attribute the cause of languages being lost "to white male privilege." I strongly disagreed and argue in favor of logistics reasons- schools lacking funds to teach other languages. She said no "it's white patriarchy trying to extinct all other dialects/languages' that are not the norm.

Being a minority myself I thought this was not a reasonable explanation.In fact, she incites racial conflict and anger between different ethnic groups by blaming the white man for everything.

That was your mistake. You can do one of two things. First, you can stay quiet and not say anything, which isn't a stupid decision. Second, you can defend your point of view in writing (if it's possible). I had an Anthropology professor who argued for what I saw as cultural Marxism. Only class in that subject I've ever taken (or ever will). When the final came around, I argued that cultural Marxism is pointless and that political correctness is a license to be offended.

I got an A- in the class. I was doing B+ work the entire semester.

Post: #15

Thank you for linking that Samseau. That was incredible.

I feel like I have all the ammo I will ever need now for when one of these moronic little hippies tries to pipe up.

Post: #16

(07-02-2015 03:13 PM)Lumbre Wrote:  The truth is that this society's dumbass Cultural Marxists always need a convenient scapegoat and a default enemy in order to justify their fight against fabricated "patriarchy" and perceived "injustice". It is a direct spawn of their deeply rooted self-victim complex. They feel that they must always have a common enemy for the advancement of their "cause" and when they don't have one they feel the need to invent one.

   

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein

Post: #17

If this nonsense isn't stamped out there could soon be oppression of whites for imagined "privilege" much like the Nazis oppressed the Jews for their imagined "privelige".

Post: #18

(07-09-2015 05:15 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  If this nonsense isn't stamped out there could soon be oppression of whites for imagined "privilege" much like the Nazis oppressed the Jews for their imagined "privelige".

It will probably happen at some point.

Post: #19

(07-09-2015 05:15 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  If this nonsense isn't stamped out there could soon be oppression of whites for imagined "privilege" much like the Nazis oppressed the Jews for their imagined "privelige".

Now there's a vivid image...white men being oppressed.

Post: #20

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to be a staunch liberal because it strongly appealed to my sense of "fairness".

Now I clearly see that liberal thinking does not serve any useful purpose in my life anymore. In fact, that kind of thinking, especially the victim-mindset has hurt myself and my development as a man. I see the toxicity of liberal thinking and what it's done to a lot of people.

Post: #21

(07-03-2015 11:17 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

The author Shelby Steele talked about this years ago. He discussed how sanctimonious white liberals come to the defense of black people not out of a sense of justice, but rather as a desire to bolster their own psyche and self-esteem. "Stop using us for your therapy" I recall him saying.

Post: #22

In my experience, one of the biggest reasons for this is historical ignorance. Leftists constantly harp on "historical wrongs" and "perpetuated injustice" but in reality they tend to be woefully uneducated on the subject. Customarily, they focus superficially on a few specific themes of American history, but lack the requisite knowledge to compare this to non-western equivalents.

A classic example of this is the slave trade: leftists will time and again sermonize about how white men brutalized African slaves, and that's true, but they invariably fail to recognize that almost all those slaves were captured and enslaved by other Africans, who then sold them for wealth and weapons. The transatlantic slave trade depended upon the constant and full participation of African polities. Leftists either don't know this or try their best to forget it.

If one points this out, one might be met with that predictable non-white-guilt-absolving response "oh well those African slave-traders didn't know how bad slavery was so you can't hold them responsible for it!", which of course is nonsense because we know from the 18th Century Scottish explorer Mungo Park that African slavers actually assumed that Europeans were going to eat the slaves they bought...and when Park tried to explain to them that the slaves were in fact intended to be used for agricultural work, the Africans didn't believe him.

In other words, African slave-traders thought the fate of their captives would be worse than it actually was (which takes quite an imagination), yet they still sold them up the river anyway because they wanted wealth and power. To this, of course, supposedly learned leftists are utterly and childishly oblivious.

There are countless other examples of this, but the general pattern is that liberals condemn whites as uniquely violent and malicious in part because they simply don't know enough about non-white history to notice the fact that such behavior is near universal across all peoples. Academia peddles an astonishingly facile and myopic misrepresentation of history which compels its ever-growing throng of indebted acolytes to howl at whites out of historical ignorance and illiteracy.

Post: #23

Something I needed to realize for the longest time was that in the place of religion (since atheism is not nearly as taboo now) people have been replacing their gods with putting their politics on their sleeve. Now couple this with rampant biased learning in the university especially in Gender Studies courses and the like you have the equivalent of a Christian zealot that's inflexible and will want to make themselves to look like the victim to further prove the narrative that they're oppressed.

They don't want to believe they're equal nor do they want to believe that white men weren't always bad because that'd undermine feminism and a certain section of leftists. So if you must debate these people treat it like a religious debate and know that converting them rarely works without copious amounts of violence and power.

Side note: Just to test on how ignorant they are just talk about the rampant slave trade in England during the time the trans-Atlantic slave trade was active.

Of course, you have to be a decent liar because England at the time was purposely trying to dismantle the slave trade and any slave that was on English soil was a free man.

Post: #24

(07-02-2015 03:07 PM)Helium1 Wrote:  Today during class I argued with a Professor who tried to attribute the cause of languages being lost "to white male privilege." I strongly disagreed and argue in favor of logistics reasons- schools lacking funds to teach other languages. She said no "it's white patriarchy trying to extinct all other dialects/languages' that are not the norm.

Being a minority myself I thought this was not a reasonable explanation.In fact, she incites racial conflict and anger between different ethnic groups by blaming the white man for everything.

There are/have been many languages that have come and gone over the years in all parts of the world, because they were niche-y, tribalistic languages that never caught on with a larger civilization. Most were replaced by more developed, efficient, easy-to-learn languages. This includes regional languages used by white males all over Europe.

Ask your teacher: Has the decline of Celtic, Welsh, Breton, Old Saxon, Venetian, Aragonese, etc. be on account of "white male privilege"? If we're going to bring back archaic/niche languages in non-white regions of the world, are we going to bring back these archaic/niche white languages also? Jus' curious.

Post: #25

Don't argue, convince.

Going in and be sappy and tell her your concern and talk things through. Become her friend, her pupil, her apprentice. Do everything accept lick her asshole to let her know she's respected, appreciated, and the boss.

Outside of math and sciences, you can hand a professor a pile of shit, and they'll give you a good grade if they like you.