DiscussMormonism.com

Themis are you Rinaldo Walcott in real life?

Professor Rinaldo Walcott of the University of Toronto is arguing that the notion of free speech is a “white supremacist” ideal.

Rinaldo Walcott, the Director of the Women & Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, has long argued that free speech is an ideal designed to uphold “white supremacy.” Walcott’s attitudes towards academic freedom and free speech were highlighted by the activist organization Far Left Watch. In a blog post published this week, the group reported that Walcott would be speaking at a “white privilege” conference at the public Ryerson University in Canada.

In a series of tweets, Walcott argued that free speech and academic freedom are rooted in white supremacy. “Let’s be clear: free speech and academic freedom, both of them, are presently constituted and defended are white supremacist speech. It is clear as day. (And I ain’t down with either of them).”

The Far Left Watch blog post pointed out the irony of Walcott’s position. Even though Walcott believes that universities are hotbeds of white supremacy, he is invited to speak at publicly-funded universities at conferences centered on leftist sociological concepts like “white privilege.”

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/1 ... supremacy/

ajax18 wrote:

Yea, that stupid professor in canada doesn't know anything about "white supremacist ideals"...

He should know to leave those type of proclamations to your typical breitbart reader...they are much more familiar with "white supremacist ideals"

Ideals and core values include:

"1. No racial misceganation
2. No nonwhite immigrants"

"the biggest racial defect/difference in the Negroid race/culture vs. Caucasian race/culture is not intellectual (though its there) but ethical. For some reason Negroes exhibit very low levels of ethical behavior even when isolated amongst themselves. But I think this is treatable"

"we should make a special effort to include nonwhites who strive to emulate white virtues, especially those of mixed race. Association and loyalty are pretty important questions when investigating people of mixed race and how to deal with them."

"a black man can mimic white virtue sufficiently so as to be even a productive member of white society, provided that his defective genes are treated so as not to be passed on."

"Making and selling weaponry (albeit not our best) to the sand ******s could serve two important purposes. We could keep our skills sharp while bringing money into white families and it would help control Jewish and Arab populations."

I applaud your efforts to point out the erroneous beliefs of some random professor in toronto regarding "white supremacist ideals" - I agree, that one guy who said something you don't like probably doesn't have his finger on the pulse of "white supremacist ideals" quite like you and people like you do. When trying to understand "white supremacist ideals", I certainly wouldn't look to a random black guy in toronto but, would instead, check out the posting habits of racist, breitbart reading, stormfront posting, white trash Trump supporters like some of the people who post here. Thanks for the (unnecessary) reminder but if I ever have any questions about "white supremacist ideals" I will be sure to come to you before this random professor.

As a left leaning individual I am deeply committed to free speech. My initial reaction to this thread was hostility to Mr Walcott. I then read the article linked and got no information but vague and garbled reports that Mr Walcott spoke but no information on what specifically he said and why. I am perfectly able to be hostile to far left ideas, I think they corrupt our politics. However I feel manipulated by the article, it seems intent on spreading anger without understanding.

This is Brietbart so take it with a grain of salt. The only single citation from the professor was this:

"“Let’s be clear: free speech and academic freedom, both of them, are presently constituted and defended are white supremacist speech. It is clear as day. (And I ain’t down with either of them).”

ain't?

Doesn't seem legit to me, and Brietbart has an embarrassing history of taking things out of context to push a false narrative.

well now that schreech and one-eye have attacked the messenger, because they have no real capacity to comprehend what they read, how about looking at the message?
For instance - Let’s be clear: free speech and academic freedom, both of them, are presently constituted and defended are white supremacist speech."
It seems that the professor is being specific with "are presently...", meaning that free speech is not intrinsically white supremacy, but is being exploited by white supremacists. In spite of intolerant people like one-eye trying to censor this concept with "hate speech", (a.k.a. speech that Liberals find offensive), we see groups like "white supremacists" using that liberty to speak in a public forum; to counter the incessant noise that intolerant people like schreech spittle forth every day. Free speech does not just apply to people who agree with you....free speech is necessary for a free society to behave freely...to modify a Nugent quote: "free speech is necessary because it allows one to identify who the weirdos are".
This Canadian Professor (oxymoron) is simply following goosestep with his already academic habit of censorship...while his criticism certainly deserves to be heard, it is nothing more than subterfuge.

Free speech does allow white supremacists to express their thoughts through tiki torch rallies and public discourse. As long as these Neo-Nazis do not go around breaking the windows of shopkeepers in the Jewish quarter, free speech is a good thing and is guaranteed as an American right.

It would still be inaccurate but probably closer to the mark to say that Jack Daniels was white supremacy.

Substupid goes all in on this one, not surprising. We have one unverified quotation originally posted on some obscure right wing blog that was then relayed to Brietfart.

Substupid is the same guy who regularly reminds us that far more supported comments are just hair fire nonsense over things that haven't been definitively oroven.

Hawkeye wrote:This is Brietbart so take it with a grain of salt. The only single citation from the professor was this:

"“Let’s be clear: free speech and academic freedom, both of them, are presently constituted and defended are white supremacist speech. It is clear as day. (And I ain’t down with either of them).”

ain't?

Doesn't seem legit to me, and Brietbart has an embarrassing history of taking things out of context to push a false narrative.

While Brietbart certainly has a penchant for dishonest misrepresentations of things people said or did, it is true that this is a fringe view on the far left. So it's perfectly possible for Brietbart to highlight one person saying it. I imagine it would be particularly important to them to find a minority saying it to reinforce the bad minority stereotype as they are wont to do.

If you soften the claim and say that "free speech" is really just coded language for white supremacy, there's even more people on the left who think that, though it is a fringe view overall. It's possible that's what this person was saying too. That idea is grounded in the reality that white supremacists who don't care much at all about free speech cynically cloak themselves in the language of it to paint criticisms of them or deplatforming as an attack on their free speech. But the idea that "free speech" in its correct sense is entirely or even mostly the domain of white supremacist agitprop is ridiculous and we should be able to say as much.

The question is why is Ajax posting this? Not a single person here is apt to agree that free speech is a lie. And this person, real or not, represents a fringe within a fringe with no meaninful power. I'd suggest the reason is that Ajax is exclusively interested in stereotyping what he thinks are his ideological opponents.

Interestingly, Ajax is an avowed fan of Ann Coulter. She recently argued that Trump should push for an Australian style restriction on speech as a pretext to start imprison ing the media. Is Ajax concerned about that much more serious attack on speech from someone he is an actual fan of? Probably not.

https://mobile.Twitter.com/anncoulter/s ... 8424894465

Or, take this story, wherein a black man was illegally jailed for 5 months based on lawfully protected speech after federal law enforcement was tipped off via an *Infowars* video of a BLM protest. That's a legitimately horrifying assualt on speech that goes well beyond a nobody saying something crazy into the void. Is Ajax concerned about that? Don't hold your breath. You see, he is one of those white supremacists who cynically use free speech as a convenient bludgeon.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... rveillance

Rinaldo Walcott is in dept of Women and gender studies institute at University of Toronto I gather. There has been a brouhaha about free speech with a Jordan Peterson who is a professor at that university. Peterson has attacked the dept of gender studies and suggested it should be boycotted as consisting of ideology instead of studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCmDtCDAM

this link is about free speak and is not to long and laborious.(includes humor)

I have been puzzled as to whether Peterson is overreacting in his campaign against what he sees as far left takeover of some portion of universities.

The question is why is Ajax posting this?

When I questioned why BLM was not protesting over the gang violence and black on black crime in Chicago and entirely focused on white on black police homicides, I was told that people are permitted to choose which issues they wanted to fix.

So why am I not permitted that same right in choosing which infringements upon constitutional free speech I point out?