Harvard students debate whether white people should just kill themselves

[slimreaper]

[video]http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/337183/[/video]


And you wonder why I hate.


These students would be kicked out of school if they were debating whether minorities should just kill themselves


EDIT: Correction these are west Georgia students

 

[Claymantan]

Harvards a little effed up in general

Columbia ftw

Btw, youre insane if you think that there is anything like a double standard at Harvard, I assure you this goes both ways

 

[slimreaper]

Harvards a little effed up in general

Columbia ftw

Btw, youre insane if you think that there is anything like a double standard at Harvard, I assure you this goes both ways

Theres a double standard at boston university. Why would harvard be any different?

 

[Hawker]

Here's the video:



But yeah what a tool that BLM kid is

 

[Punk Hazard]

lmfao what an idiot.

 

[-immortal-]

Interesting

 

[Marin]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooool

 

[Yatori]

lmaooooo

 

[Gerkak]

Yeah I saw this too before.

 

[Defence]

You will find idiots everywhere.

 

[Claymantan]

Theres a double standard at boston university. Why would harvard be any different?

I'm not arguing with you in a strict sense

I just mean that the culture at Harvard is actually less friendly to political correctness than you think, and it's pretty elitist/clique-y, so I wouldn't have been surprised

It's wrong everywhere, obviously, but douchebaggery manifests in all places

The type of douchebaggery is just influenced by like location and demographic

According to you this is West Georgia though? It seems like we don't even know the actual situation

But like I said, you're insane if you think stuff like this isn't happening everywhere all the time with people firing shots at everyone

People worried about PC are so silly, there's no real PC culture restricting people man

 

[Dr Gilgamesh]

Disgusting.

 

[slimreaper]

I'm not arguing with you in a strict sense

I just mean that the culture at Harvard is actually less friendly to political correctness than you think, and it's pretty elitist/clique-y, so I wouldn't have been surprised

It's wrong everywhere, obviously, but douchebaggery manifests in all places

The type of douchebaggery is just influenced by like location and demographic

According to you this is West Georgia though? It seems like we don't even know the actual situation

But like I said, you're insane if you think stuff like this isn't happening everywhere all the time with people firing shots at everyone

People worried about PC are so silly, there's no real PC culture restricting people man

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

One of these professors was put on administrative leave, the other wasn't. NO Bias there


Not to mention the white professor had tenure where as the black woman had none

 

[BlacLord™]

They weren't Harvard students, they were from the University of West Georgia. Turns out the argument wasn't actually an argument, but a statement made to show the absurdity of their opponent's argument:

Spoiler

Dear Mr. Davis,I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to email me directly concerning the posting of this video clip. We understand the concern surrounding a video posted this week that includes comments made by two former University of West Georgia debate students. While these students participated in a nationally sanctioned debate event in 2012 representing UWG, their comments, or the comments made in any debate, do not reflect the University’s views or values.We take diversity and inclusion very seriously. We work hard every day to ensure our students, faculty and staff from all backgrounds feel welcome and valued. Our top priority remains fostering the safest learning environment we can in which students can learn, grow and achieve.As part of that commitment, UWG will not tolerate or allow comments or behavior that incite prejudice or violence against any individual or group. Any student who engages in such behavior will be investigated under the university’s student code of conduct, resulting in appropriate sanctions.Comments made during debate training or debate events or theater rehearsals are rare exceptions to this policy. College debate programs operate in a manner similar to laboratories, where events like those depicted in the video are closely controlled and monitored. One team presents a position and the other responds, often using extreme arguments to show that a particular point is illogical.In the case of the 2012 video, the debate centered on energy policy. The first team argued that white people embracing the location of wind turbines in their neighborhoods would be a way to address criticism that racism is inherent in the movement of white populations from urban areas. The former UWG students countered that argument by claiming that the extreme would not be for white people to locate themselves near wind turbines, but rather for white people to sacrifice themselves to remove racism altogether. The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position.Unfortunately, the purposefully-edited video posted this week does not capture the complete discussion. It includes less than a minute and a half of a debate that lasted more than an hour and a half. It does not show that the first team injected the element of racism. Ultimately, it focuses solely on the extreme points used by one of the UWG students to counter an argument in a sanctioned debate. When taken out of the context of a competition in which one team commonly uses extreme rhetoric to argue against an opponent’s extreme rhetoric, the scenes from the video are shocking. The fact that the debate was not halted and authorities were not notified shows the controlled environment in which the comments were made.Again, the students’ comments included in the video do not reflect the values of our university. They do not represent beliefs or doctrines we teach to students.I sincerely hope that by providing the context in which this video is depicted helps restore your faith in our university and in future generations of leaders.Sincerely,Kyle Marrero

I found this in less than a minute. It really does help not to be biased and/or jump to conclusions. I'm not a BLM supporter per se, but it doesn't mean I won't get the full facts before forming a conclusion. You don't set a precedent of equality for all by looking at things from just one angle.

 

[LordRaikage]

GEorgia figures...idiots.

 

[Claymantan]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

One of these professors was put on administrative leave, the other wasn't. NO Bias there


Not to mention the white professor had tenure where as the black woman had none

Well aside from the fact that there's a difference between saying slavery (in the United States) is of white origin (fact), and saying black people are lazy, administrative leave is a slap on the wrist for a tenured professor

You're so butthurt that people saying slavery is bad isn't viewed the same way as some professor calling black people lazy? XD

Private institutions can do what they want based on the image they want to project. Boston U specifically supported the professor, there's no comment on what Duke's administration thought about the guy, so. It's bias in a sense, but it's perfectly harmless (in the sense that this is an academic difference, not some deep seated difference in how each administration views race )

And this coming from the guy posting the most biased sources

Time, sure, but this other thing is clearly the most right-wing wannabe pundit crap

 

[LordRaikage]

...........so op and some other guy spend all their time searching for videos like that on the internet?

 

[Claymantan]

...........so op and some other guy spend all their time searching for videos like that on the internet?

Yeah basically

This guy is really looking for justifications as to why he's constantly spewing hate on the forums but nobody buys it

 

[Hawker]

They weren't Harvard students, they were from the University of West Georgia. Turns out the argument wasn't actually an argument, but a statement made to show the absurdity of their opponent's argument:

Spoiler

Dear Mr. Davis,I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to email me directly concerning the posting of this video clip. We understand the concern surrounding a video posted this week that includes comments made by two former University of West Georgia debate students. While these students participated in a nationally sanctioned debate event in 2012 representing UWG, their comments, or the comments made in any debate, do not reflect the University’s views or values.We take diversity and inclusion very seriously. We work hard every day to ensure our students, faculty and staff from all backgrounds feel welcome and valued. Our top priority remains fostering the safest learning environment we can in which students can learn, grow and achieve.As part of that commitment, UWG will not tolerate or allow comments or behavior that incite prejudice or violence against any individual or group. Any student who engages in such behavior will be investigated under the university’s student code of conduct, resulting in appropriate sanctions.Comments made during debate training or debate events or theater rehearsals are rare exceptions to this policy. College debate programs operate in a manner similar to laboratories, where events like those depicted in the video are closely controlled and monitored. One team presents a position and the other responds, often using extreme arguments to show that a particular point is illogical.In the case of the 2012 video, the debate centered on energy policy. The first team argued that white people embracing the location of wind turbines in their neighborhoods would be a way to address criticism that racism is inherent in the movement of white populations from urban areas. The former UWG students countered that argument by claiming that the extreme would not be for white people to locate themselves near wind turbines, but rather for white people to sacrifice themselves to remove racism altogether. The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position.Unfortunately, the purposefully-edited video posted this week does not capture the complete discussion. It includes less than a minute and a half of a debate that lasted more than an hour and a half. It does not show that the first team injected the element of racism. Ultimately, it focuses solely on the extreme points used by one of the UWG students to counter an argument in a sanctioned debate. When taken out of the context of a competition in which one team commonly uses extreme rhetoric to argue against an opponent’s extreme rhetoric, the scenes from the video are shocking. The fact that the debate was not halted and authorities were not notified shows the controlled environment in which the comments were made.Again, the students’ comments included in the video do not reflect the values of our university. They do not represent beliefs or doctrines we teach to students.I sincerely hope that by providing the context in which this video is depicted helps restore your faith in our university and in future generations of leaders.Sincerely,Kyle Marrero

I found this in less than a minute. It really does help not to be biased and/or jump to conclusions. I'm not a BLM supporter per se, but it doesn't mean I won't get the full facts before forming a conclusion. You don't set a precedent of equality for all by looking at things from just one angle.

I saw that in the comment section of that youtube video. Doesn't mean it's real though, but sounds authentic.

 

[slimreaper]

Well aside from the fact that there's a difference between saying slavery (in the United States) is of white origin (fact), and saying black people are lazy, administrative leave is a slap on the wrist for a tenured professor

You're so butthurt that people saying slavery is bad isn't viewed the same way as some professor calling black people lazy? XD

Private institutions can do what they want based on the image they want to project. Boston U specifically supported the professor, there's no comment on what Duke's administration thought about the guy, so. It's bias in a sense, but it's perfectly harmless (in the sense that this is an academic difference, not some deep seated difference in how each administration views race )

And this coming from the guy posting the most biased sources

Time, sure, but this other thing is clearly the most right-wing wannabe pundit crap

She didn't say slavery is bad moron she said " Why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?"

it's perfectly harmless