While Glaude's words sink in, let's review how some fascism-adjacent critics of academia are reacting to the election results.
Spoiler: They aren't moving past white supremacy. Oh, no. Their heels are dug in. In Glaude's words, they want to do this again & again & again. 2/
New Radical Racism: If the Democrats were just a lot more racist, they would have won more handsomely! Not incorrect, I suppose.
Also cheers on #JamesLindsay in proclaiming that anti-racism is a poison. How dare anyone suggest white people have anything to do with racism! 3/
Colin Wright: Personally embarrassed that his 2 degrees from UC schools feel a little less pure given unis want to increase access to education for underrepresented groups. Holds up his cartoon definition of systemic racism to claim that access to education is the real racism! 4/
Colin Wright, ctd.: Calls for continuance of fight against a nebulous ideological enemy. As a correspondence truther, he knows for certain "they" are wrong, their version of the world unreal, their thinking already falsified though also unfalsifiable. He is free of ideology. 5/
James Lindsay: The world makes sense, actually, if we aggressively pretend racism does not exist. 6/
James Lindsay, ctd.: I am personally funded by religious supremacists, but please take my unhinged word for it that „the Woke“ are a multi-billion-dollar operation of „religious fanatics.“ If Biden, the Wokiee, takes power, do „what you need to do.“ 7/
James Lindsay, again: In my world, which makes sense because I pretend racism doesn’t exist, Democrats are radicals! They *will* try to govern. That’s how radical. With TASK FORCES. There‘s some shield somewhere but it’s flimsy and it will fall in the face of such radicalism. 8/
#JamesLindsay, one more: When a Black person talks about facing our history and getting past racism, he can only be trying to make me hate myself! I will have none of that history. In my world, all is already great. We’re fine. Trump isn’t a racist. Make America great! 9/
Thread on recent question period back-and-forth about freedom of expression. Erin O'Toole stood up trying to criticize Justin Trudeau's comments on events in France. O'Toole tried to chastise in the broadest, least specific terms about #FreeSpeech and freedom of assembly. 1/
Obsessive yet undifferentiated focus on the concept of freedom of speech in discussions of this recent case of the murder of Samuel Paty obscures more than it reveals. I have some thoughts for you. 2/
The hook for O'Toole was that Trudeau had uttered the (banal, really, it's Canadian law) phrase that "free speech has limits." O'Toole's questions were trying to make Trudeau look like he'd abandoned the value of free speech by merely stating a legal fact. 3/
#JamesLindsay has another wild take on history. Remember when he said colonialism was about bringing the Enlightenment & liberal democracy to the Americas? Now he says the French Revolution—an uprising of do-nothing bourgeois—spawned critical theory.
"The Equality Act...would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation & gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, & the jury system."
I have been puzzling about this concept of "sex-based rights" that anti-trans campaigners are working so hard to establish. As far as I can see, it is only anti-trans campaigners who use the phrase. 2/
Let me point out the slight of hand that is the phrase "sex-based rights", based on what I understand about the Canadian legal situation. 3/
It really is so very bothersome that there is smearing and name-calling in conversations between anti- and hereditarians. By all means let’s condemn those who call the others “lying idiots” who are “deranged.” *thumbs up*
I can't always seem to find the patience that others have. I'm often sorry about that. I edited my response to this thread in an effort to be a little nicer. You can still see how shaky the defence is of what emerge as noticeable implications from #NathanCofnas' published work.
Someone asked me, in response to my mini-thread above, why I would object to keeping "equally smart" kids out of the same class. He also suggested that Phillippe's defence is not elaborate, but a plain reading of #NathanCofnas's paper. I think the opposite is true. My response:
Neat how the study presents Trump as a garden variety conservative who neatly balances the scale to Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Rather than as the white supremacist, misogynist, and transphobe that he is.
"Female students reported less tolerance for speakers than male students. LGBT students reported less tolerance for speakers than straight students. Black students reported less tolerance than Hispanic, Asian, or white students."
Whysoever would these groups of students not support Donald Trump coming to their campus to give a rousing campaign speech? It's is truly a free speech mystery.