Posted on 12/09/2016 5:41:55 AM PST by NYer
Yesterday, a student contacted me with a concern that is common among those taking courses in the social sciences and humanities. This particular student is enrolled in an online criminology class taught by a leftist professor. During a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement, one of the more conservative students in her class used the phrase “all lives matter.” Predictably, the leftist professor objected. But he went even further by repeatedly accusing the student of racism. To make matters worse, the ad hominem attacks were made in front of all the students enrolled in the course. It was part of an online class “discussion.”
Although the student who contacted me was not the one attacked, she wanted to know how to confront the professor who was so clearly out of line. She was understandably reticent to express her own views after seeing a fellow student attacked in the middle of class discussion. Given the importance of the issue, I am printing my response to the student to help other students who are similarly attacked or intimidated in the classroom:
Dear Amber: The first thing to remember about responding to a false accuser is what not to do. Above all, you must resist the temptation to accuse the professor of harassment or of breaking the campus speech code. That is what leftists do and it is wrong. The best way to respond to bad speech is with better speech, not censorship.
Furthermore, you need to respond to accusations of racism with questions rather than assertions. Here are the three questions you need to ask. William Wilbanks, author of The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, inspired the first two questions. Greg Koukl, author of the book Tactics, inspired the third:
1. What do you mean by racism? First of all, you need to realize that academic leftists rarely understand the terms they are using when they attack conservatives. Racism is a specific belief that races can be ranked according to genetically inherited characteristics. For example, when a white supremacist takes a racist view of blacks he is really saying that they are genetically inferior. This genetic inferiority allegedly manifests itself in lower intelligence, which, in turn, translates into other undesirable characteristics such as sloth and a propensity toward crime.
If the professor cannot supply the correct definition of racism after he has used the term then he makes a complete fool of himself. If he can supply the correct definition, this leads to an even bigger problem, which we will explore with the second question.
2. How does racism apply to the situation at hand? If the professor does happen to know the real definition of racism then he’s in quite a pickle here. You can ask the professor “How exactly does the assertion that ’all lives matter’ (read: all lives have equal value) translate into the notion that certain categories of people are genetically inferior to other categories of people?”
3. Have you ever considered the following? After showing that the professor doesn’t know the meaning of the words he is using and has no evidence to support his position his credibility is decimated. Now it is time to move in for the kill.
There are a lot of options here. For example, one could simply ask, “Have you ever considered that the statement ‘all lives matter’ is fundamentally anti-racist?” Asking, “Are you at all concerned that by opposing an anti-racist statement you align yourself with the true racists” would be a good follow-up question from which the professor could never recover.
In academia today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the mentors from the protégés. Fortunately, exposing these incompetent professors is never more than a few well-placed questions away.
I didn't care if my professors liked or agreed with my point of view, and I will not be intimated by the bleatings of fools.
I think the arguments suggested in the OP are OK, but too narrow in option. Most professors are capable of tying things up at the first question, definition of racism.
It is wise to be open to intellectually valid challenge, but when your opponent is an idiot, treat them like an idiot.
I would modify...
What do you mean by racist?
How exactly does that apply to me?
Have you considered what the damages in a defamation suit might be in your situation?
They don’t care about facts. They need a “racist” to rail against, and by not instantly & completely spotting the party line, you are assigned the role of designated racist - at which point everything you say will be used against you.
Heads up: they have redefined “racist”, and won’t tell you the new definition other than you are one and that makes you evil.
One of my cousins called me a racist in 2008, simply because I wasn’t supporting Obama. It was during an email exchange, which he then bulk emailed to all the relatives on my email list. There was no point in arguing. He used to be pretty intelligent. I know longer speak to him. Obama has been the Divider-in-Chief for too long. We must take back to narrative and speak TRUTH and call a spade a spade (and no, that is not a racial reference).
The problem I face is that when I ask “How is that racist?”. They react with hysteria.
Your approach is much better than the one in the OP. It is directly on the point in contention. “Which lives don’t matter?” Make them answer that. Let ‘em ramble, then say, but you didn’t answer the question, which lives don’t matter? This game will go on until your opponent shuts down the conversation without answering the question. Observers will get it. And some of them might even grow a little spine just by watching.
I bet BLM would object to a counter chant of Stop Gang Violence
I'm originally from Mississippi, and though far from being a racist, I get immediately labeled as one. There's no sense arguing facts with those that accuse you, logic does not apply with them. The best thing I've found is to accept the [false] label. That pisses them off to no end.
Breeds and races are best described as subspecies. they are all members of the same species, biologically capable of reproducing with each other.
Stick to the facts and keep talking about how blacks are being their own worst enemies — crime, gambling, drugs, illegitimate kids, school drop-outs, won’t save even when they can, etc.
Good advice.
Additional advice. Make and keep a record of the exchange - if you have not signed an agreement preventing you from making such a recording. If there is retaliation in the form of an unjustified bad grade, be ready to fight using what was actually said.
Deprive them of power by demonstrating to them that you will not be blackmailed into supporting their arguments. Show them that their tool does not work any more. Confront them head on and dare them to do something about it.
This is exactly what has been developed as the latest response to advocates of Gun Control.
I see no reason why it wouldn't work just as well for accusers of racism.
This is very much the more wiser course of action, though telling them to "f*** off" should be incorporated in there somewhere.
“I disagree. The Best response is “F*** You! I will not play your stupid game. You want to call me a racist? F*** you. I don’t care what you think. “”
I agree with your statement. This is what I also do. And on top of it I call them a moron and make fun of them. I learned a long time ago that arguing with a leftist is like playing checkers with a chicken. They have no clue what they are doing and crap all over the place. Alinsky wrote the book. I suggest we all read it and use it at every opportunity.
His definition of racist is outdated. When today’s liberal uses the term, it means “somebody who disagrees with me and is Hitler and I hate him so much I should carve his eyeballs out and seriously f@#k him I can’t even”.
It is. Only a fool brings a logic argument to an emotion fight. The accusation of "racism" in this context is an emotional assertion, and the correct response is "F*** you and the Horse you rode in on."
You are changing the dynamic of the discussion from what is wrong with you, to what is wrong with the accuser. By dismissing the argument with a "f*** you" you are not only indicating that you don't consider it worthy of discussion, but that the person who is bringing it up is an @$$hole who's expressed opinion does not deserve any consideration.
You are "dissing" him, and that is exactly what you should do when he starts off "dissing" you. (disrespecting.)
Just keep repeating it. Don't let him attach his label to you without resistance. Every time he says it, say "F*** you! F*** you! F*** you! I reject your vile accusations!
Repetition works in emotional arguments.
Exactly. Put him back on the defensive. I would even lead with "Do Jewish lives matter?" Because if he says "no", you got him. (He's an antisemite. Tell him so. It's just what he tried to do to you with the "racist" accusation.) If he says "yes" you also got him because he is now contradicting himself.
Force him into a position where he must pit one irrational attitude against another. Make him look the fool.
While Mike Adams makes generally good points here (as always), this is one where I will disagree.
Adams' advice assumes that the type of professor who hurls such epithets actually knows or cares about 'facts', 'the truth', etc. or that he/she is susceptible to questions or arguments based on concepts such as 'logic', or that they can even be shamed as a result of making a fool of themselves, showing themselves to be incompetent, or worse.
In my experience, when it comes down to a choice between making themselves look foolish to 'normal' people, or backtracking on their leftist orthodoxy in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they will stick to the orthodoxy and act the fool every time.
In addition, leftist idiots are never shy about using false accusations, using institutional power to suppress the speech of others, and punishing anyone who dares to offer a dissenting opinion.
These people do not deserve to be treated with civility, as if they were susceptible to being convinced by rational arguments backed up by facts.
Rather, these bullies need to receive pushback - they need to be confronted by their victims, and have their noses figuratively rubbed in their own excrement.
Unilateral disarmament is a poor strategy. Conservatives have been doing that for decades, and look at what that has gained them (e.g. "nothing").
Milo Yiannopoulos has the right idea, so does Steven Crowder. Ridicule is a very effective weapon.
I'm all for going beyond their approaches, though - if lefties are infatuated with Alinsky tactics (beyond just ridicule), then by all means give it to them full-force - let them see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Confront them with accusations of harassment, sexism, racism, and creating a hostile work environment. Turn "the system" on its head and use it as a weapon against them. Use their own speech codes to tie them up in knots. Play the victim (after all, you are the victim of their bullying and intimidation tactics).
Rinse, repeat, win.
Questions will only work with someone willing to establish a dialogue with you. That is not the case here. This professor just wanted to shout down the student (as they do). A question would be answered with more of the same, even more agressively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.