Lecturer At Yale Event Fantasizes About Murdering Whites

Post Reply New Topic

In other related psychology news:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/he ... nent-cure/

The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association published a research article in May that describes being white as “a malignant, parasitic-like condition,” and a dangerous, discriminatory, and perverse mental condition.

Written by Donald Moss, an author and activist, the article entitled “On Having Whiteness,” explains that whiteness establishes an “entitled dominion” that enables the “host” of “parasitic whiteness” to have “power without limit, force without restriction, violence without mercy,” adding that it has a drive to “hate, and terrorize.”

Moss claims whiteness “easily infiltrates even groups founded on the protection of individuals, on democratic principles.”

While Moss opens his paper by claiming that “No clear path links my argument to that of my predecessors,” his article is not by any means the first time that scholars have endeavored to establish “whiteness” as an institutionally recognized pathology that requires treatment or a cure.


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 1211008507

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

Probably deserves its own thread, but I don't want to spam up the forums.

That description sounds like Trump.

I feel like the person who wrote that article has an overactive imagination----to say the least.

I don't care about the "context."

To describe a whole "race" as a "malignancy" is rather similar to the psychology of the toxic racism of the South pre-Civil Rights Era in justifying what white people did AFTER lynching black folks.

Reminds me of how Pol Pot viewed intellectuals in Cambodia.

Let me emphasize: most "wokeness" doesn't go that far----but it has the potential to go that far.

Indeed. I likewise doubt that cyberdad would have anything like the same sort of sympathy for any White person who said anything a fraction as extreme as what Dr. K came out with. Cyberdad’s posts on WP make that fairly plain.


She knew what she was doing. She might not act on her expressed urges (although there’s no way you can be “100% sure” she wouldn’t), but by normalizing talk of murdering whites she’s making it more likely that some other people will.

And this is in a society where people are already bombarded with talk about how whites are “privileged” and are constantly “oppressing” everyone else, while white people are discouraged from calling the police for help (no one wants to be a “Karen” now, do they). I could show you cases of non-Whites who have acted on such urges against White people, but you'd just make excuses for them too, and you'd probably attack me for even knowing about such cases.

In fact, the talk in US society about how whites are “privileged” and are constantly “oppressing” everyone else is talk that you in your small way contribute to (notwithstanding the fact you are based in Australia); indeed, you seem to have virtually nothing else to contribute on WP when it comes to politics and current events, so I suppose it’s no surprise that you would have sympathy for this woman. You’ve got to fit her violent, anti-white talk into your narrative somehow haven’t you?

I hope plenty of forum members remember the stuff you’re coming out with on this thread when you decide to lecture us all on morality in future.

All this "white guilt on steroids" doesn't mean that racism is not something which needs to be addressed.

It is still out there.

And it is not fair to those who are the victims of racism.

There has never been a shortage of hypocrisy on this website, in the past.
Hopefully, things have changed.
I have no criticism of magz, btw.

There is media bias on both sides of the political divide.
Claiming it is just in one area is a sign of hyperpartisanship and diminishes the credibility of the people espousing the nonsense.

Having said that, the situation isn't binary/black&white.
Some sources have more credibility than others.



Agreed.

And who could be infatuated with you?
Just look at that James bond face.



Indeed.

Making an observation is not stirring up problems.
I was referring to the seeming double standards.

You are my favourite mod, and I see you as the most objective.
You should know that.

Having had my racial background assumed and this assumed race weaponised against me on this site, that would appear to be quite an accurate observation...

I have wondered if those people who commit racist acts, while pointing to "racism" everywhere else aren't simply providing a form of "confession through projection", and attributing their own subconcious beliefs\feelings onto others as a way to distance themselves from their "inner guilt".

Basically she was invited to talk to her peers on the psychological barriers of talking to white people about race. According to her she dismissed the exercise as a “waste of breath.” She directly drew on her experience of how her white therapist had called her anger on racism “psychotic”.

Interestingly (and perhaps not surprisingly) her talk has been positively received by the psychiatric community and also by the black community. A Yale psychologist on social media described her talk as "absolutely brilliant", while a woman identifying herself as black commended her for giving “voice to us as people of colour and what we go through all the time.”

The trouble began when the audio of the talk was posted last week on the sub-stack online platform of former New York Times opinion writer and editor Bari Weiss. Since then, conservative publications, alt-right talking heads and social media trolls have had a field day fixating on one small part of her speech:

Dr Khilanani told the NY times that her talk was taken out of context and that a certain segment of the community sees and responds to the repressed rage that BIPOC (people) feel after generations of discrimination, mistreatment and racism both overt and casual.

This illustrates the difference between the discipline of philosophy and psychiatry. Philosophical perspective that your professor discussed is seen through the lense of "moral relativity" and the norms of American social discourse on morals and ethics.

Dr Khilanani is discussing her repressed anger through the lens of Freud's psychoanalysis. Freud encouraged release of repressed thoughts as its cathartic and unhealthy to suppress. In the context of a talk to psychiatrists and medical students she shared her experience as a learning moment for colleagues in her field of psychoanalysis.

Not sure why you (and others) are saying this is about me? most strange??
I do contribute to a wide range of social, political and other various special interest topics on WP (like history) and you are most welcome to review my posting history on other topics like climate change, the environment, nature.

But please don't try and pigeonhole me in order to invalidate whatever I have contributed to this thread (which BTW I didn't create).

Sounds like everyday... even white skinned people who were busy starving somewhere besides North America are responsible for all that ails. That's the sort of thinking that perpetuates segregation.

I'd guess it's because a person's actions are a better indicator of their character than their claims regarding it...

If a person is happy to weaponise race against another member on the site (aggravated by the fact they have made assumptions in order to decide whether the racial identifier used was "appropriate" for the member), and assert "racism" against people shown in the media (for actions which were objectively less racist than that under discussion in this thread), then their "impartiality"\"objectivity" is well within bounds of scrutiny.

Do pray tell what British stereotypes have to do with weaponising race against WP members or a psychiatrist's fantasies Brictoria?

Again I was not the creator of that thread either so perhaps you should direct your concerns to the OP of that thread.

I am a little confused why you are conflating what looks like three different/disparate topics?