Your Tax Dollars At Work
By Mitch Berg
University of Kansas prof says that men who don’t vote for Harris/Klink should be…
Well, it’s all right here. Go for it.
Not that this is news, necessarily.
The University issued one of those “Oaaaaakaaaay, we’ll look into it, because hypothetically that’s not the kind of thing we approve of here, if it happened…” statements that says between the lines “our PR department is working overtime on this one…”
October 10th, 2024 at 6:19 am
I saw this on another site yesterday. Needless to say, the dude got taken to the wood shed by commenters, including two that claimed they had kids going there. Both stated they were placing calls to the HMFIC of the university and said they would be sending the kids elsewhere.
October 10th, 2024 at 7:05 am
Doesn’t the normal progression follow something like this:
1) “Oaaaaakaaaay, we’ll look into it, because hypothetically that’s not the kind of thing we approve of here, if it happened…”
2) Well, OK, so maybe something like it happened, but it wasn’t that bad; and
3) Yeah, OK, fine, it happened and it’s all Trump’s fault
October 10th, 2024 at 8:07 am
OK…how many people read posts like these and don’t actually watch the video but get all outraged by the clickbait headlines and narrative?
He did.not.say men who refuse to vote for Harris should be shot. He said men who refuse to vote for a “potential female candidate” because they think women aren’t smart enough to be president should be shot.
Two completely different arguments. Is that what he meant by his statement? I don’t know and neither do you because you are not a mind reader.
Putting words into the mouths of people to fit a narrative…i.e. misrepresenting what they say to score cheap political points is just as contemptible when the right does it as when the left does it.
I’m disappointed.
If you want to take offense at what he said, tell us what he said, not what you imagine he might have meant if you squint real hard and plug your ears.
I’m not defending his statement, advocating for the execution of anyone just because you disagree with them is egregious in and of itself…it’s not necessary to misrepresent what he actually said to make that point.
October 10th, 2024 at 9:11 am
Sailor,
Please explain how that distinction makes it any better?
October 10th, 2024 at 9:23 am
I don´t think this is entirely fair, Sailorcurt. This post is pretty neutral about presenting the professor’s comments. Yes, it does extract Harris(/Klink) from “potential female president”, but Harris is, in fact, a potential female president, so I don’t see the problem.
Moreover, guys unwilling to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president look pretty prescient with a ditz like Harris in the running. That they should be lined up and shot for this (tentatively still legal) perspective seems noteworthy.
October 10th, 2024 at 11:51 am
IMHO, the lecturer likely started this by misrepresenting someone else’s argument that “THIS female candidate is not smart enough to be President” to mean “NO female candidate is smart enough to be President.”
October 10th, 2024 at 1:10 pm
I agree with Sailorcurt: We should always take the time to watch the video before becoming outrage. Otherwise, we’re no different than the Kamala-bots.
I agree with the notion that someone who wouldn’t vote for a female presidential candidate on the basis of her being female is not a deep thinker. And I’m inclined to believe that is where the professor may have been heading, with the grace of a male bovine in a china shop.
Saying such people should be “lined up and shot”? That is where he professor erred. And he made matters worse with a request to erase the video to ostensibly escape punishment. Conventional wisdom typically holds that the cover-up is worse than the crime. Assuming his frustration was with men who don’t vote for women specifically because they’re women, the professor could’ve said something like: “I shouldn’t have said that, I just get frustrated with willful ignorance.” Instead, he dug the hole deeper.
Ironically, it shows the professor’s finite patience with those he views as ignorant: “I’m done trying to educate you, please stand over there, along that wall, the one with the blood stains.” Also, in an era where poorly-chosen words get blasted on social media ad nauseum, an educator needs to be more careful in going off-script.
The prof deserves to be fired.
October 10th, 2024 at 1:26 pm
“Please explain how that distinction makes it any better?”
But that’s exactly my point. His statement was egregious enough as it was without having to embellish it. So why do that? Claiming he said something he didn’t say does nothing but damage the credibility of the person making the demonstrably false claim; and it provides ammunition to the left when they misreport something that a conservative said…”your side does it too!!!”
———–
“This post is pretty neutral about presenting the professor’s comments. Yes, it does extract Harris(/Klink) from “potential female president””
Extract? To extract something, the thing you’re extracting must actually be present in the object from which it is being extracted. This post and the twitter/X post containing the video weren’t “extracting” anything, they just made it up out of wholecloth. I don’t consider making stuff up about what someone said to be “neutral” at all. Was the media making up a lie about Trump praising neo-nazi’s at Charlottesville “pretty neutral?”
————–
And here’s a link to a news source that actually reported on the story accurately:
https://thelibertydaily.com/line-all-those-guys-up-shoot-them-professor/
Why is that so hard? Granted, I’m just a random commenter, not a journalist…not even an amateur one…so maybe I just don’t grok how complicated it is to tell the truth.
October 10th, 2024 at 6:24 pm
Actually, listening to the recording, he states “there are going to be some guys….”, which places it firmly in the context of whether or not someone should vote for Ms. Harris. There is no other female candidate for President at the moment. It’s implicit, not explicit, but that part of it is real, IMO.
Where there is some plausible deniability is where the professor says to scratch that from the recording–he knows his statement is wrong and obnoxious, and we would infer it’s either a badly chosen joke, or he really doesn’t have the courage of his convictions.
Worth noting is that deans have thankfully taken him aside and put him on administrative leave–which more or less means that his access to students is stopped for a while, and it also means that getting his name out there through research will be more difficult. So kudos to UK for stepping up to the plate.