Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

Here's the juicy part...

It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

Feed the "academia is nothing but liberals" bias!! Idiot..

 

[Badabing]

I wouldn't say that gives Liberals a bad name, just makes him look like an ass.

 

[Howlin' Mad]

We had an asshat professor at Kent State University who would only refer to the suicide bombers in Israel as martyrs. Last I checked, a martyr was someone who willingly gave up their life for a principle. The definition didn't include anything about taking other people's lives with ya. Needless to say, this prof was always good at stirring up the students and got his ass fired.

 

[Willco]

I predict at least two people on this forum will agree with him.

 

[Fresh Prince]

The guy's a nutcase sure some of the people there were working for the 'machine' but it doesn't mean they were the 'machine'.

 

[bishoptl]

Way out of line in those WTC comments. That said:

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

is spot-on.

 

[nitewulf]

civilians of a sort? of what sort, of the civilian sort?

 

[MIMIC]

Way out of line in those WTC comments. That said:

is spot-on.

You're wrong. It's because terrorists hate freedom. </Bush>

 

[Inumaru]

Don't know that that's a bias that needs feeding. It's widely accepted that academics in general tend to be liberals, and there's certainly a disproportionate number of leftists, Marxists, and other "-ists" of one extreme persuasion or another. Not all, of course, but it's a generalization that isn't far from the truth. My public University experience was certainly no different.

Anyway, what do you expect from a professor of "Cultural Studies" who titles his essay after one of Malcolm X's most infamous quotes? Wonder if he's a practicing member of the Nation of Islam? Certainly wouldn't surprise me.

 

[gohepcat]

I'm sure Fox News is gonging to shut down regular programing to dedicate 24 hours to this non-story.

 

[Inumaru]

I wouldn't say that gives Liberals a bad name, just makes him look like an ass.

Agreed. Wanted to clarify that being a "Liberal" and this guy's beliefs are two very different things, to me. This guy is waaaay out there.

 

[skip]

You're wrong. It's because terrorists hate freedom. </Bush>

they kinda sorta do, though:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.main

(CNN) -- An Internet recording claiming to be from wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi condemned democracy as "the big American lie" on Sunday and said participants in Iraq's January 30 election are enemies of Islam.

The authenticity of the message could not immediately be confirmed by CNN.

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

 

[Incognito]

Don't know that that's a bias that needs feeding. It's widely accepted that academics in general tend to be liberals, and there's certainly a disproportionate number of leftists, Marxists, and other "-ists" of one extreme persuasion or another. Not all, of course, but it's a generalization that isn't far from the truth. My public University experience was certainly no different.

Anyway, what do you expect from a professor of "Cultural Studies" who titles his essay after one of Malcolm X's most infamous quotes? Wonder if he's a practicing member of the Nation of Islam? Certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Widely accepted by whom? The conservatives who don't have control over what's being taught?

 

[olimario]

FUCK HIM
I have a professor like this... A professor who thinks being a professor allows him to be a complete fucking jackass and allows him to present his overwhelmingly minority opinion as fact.
Fire him. His radical views should NOT be in the classroom.

 

[Inumaru]

I'm sure Fox News is gonging to shut down regular programing to dedicate 24 hours to this non-story.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

I like Fox News sometimes, but you are so right. They do get a little carried away from time to time.

 

[Drozmight]

This guy must be a father of the girl in the Attention Whore picture.

 

[Inumaru]

Widely accepted by whom? The conservatives who don't have control over what's being taught?

You're actually going to try to argue this point? Please...

I don't know any intelligent liberals who have a degree who wouldn't admit that University academia is overwhelmingly liberal at most Universities. There are better points to argue in this thread. This is a losing one, and unimportant.

 

[Drozmight]

FUCK HIM
I have a professor like this... A professor who thinks being a professor allows him to be a complete fucking jackass and allows him to present his overwhelmingly minority opinion as fact.
Fire him. His radical views should NOT be in the classroom.

YEAH! Screw freedom of speech!!!

 

[olimario]

YEAH! Screw freedom of speech!!!

Professors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want in front of students they are teaching. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't.

 

[nitewulf]

Professors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want in front of students they are teaching. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't.

pretty sure they can. that is the exact point of earning a PhD, getting an original opinion out there. professors are by default very biased, they are not meant to be neutral. and as such the point of university courses is for the dumbass students to get used to varying opinions, and as a result be able form and defend their own opinion against differing opinions and thoughts.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Well this guy's a jackass, but he has a point that U.S. policy played a big role in why it happened ... but that doesn't mean it was right. It was still a horrible act. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[cubanb]

Professors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want in front of students they are teaching. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't.

at my university , they can. they cite "academic freedom"

 

[Inumaru]

pretty sure they can. that is the exact point of earning a PhD, getting an original opinion out there. professors are by default very biased, they are not meant to be neutral. and as such the point of university courses is for the dumbass students to get used to varying opinions, and as a result be able form and defend their own opinion against differing opinions and thoughts.

So you think this same University would keep a professor on that taught that the Jews in WWII deserved the Holocaust? That's a different opinion, yet not too far removed from what this professor is saying...

 

[levious]

Professors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want in front of students they are teaching. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't.

yeah, relax... it's not like this guy's a weatherman.

 

[Guileless]

A janitor at the WTC is the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann?

There is a moral difference between deliberately targeting civilians and taking great pains, even endangering the lives of pilots, to avoid collateral damage. The Taliban, Saddam, and Milosevic (what a pantheon there) put combatants near schools, hospitals, and mosques because they knew the US military would not deliberately inflict collateral damage on those sites.

You'd think if someone as educated as a college professor would be able to understand something that the Taliban knew.

 

[nitewulf]

So you think this same University would keep a professor on that taught that the Jews in WWII deserved the Holocaust? That's a different opinion, yet not too far removed from what this professor is saying...

can said professor validate his claim? was that the subject of his dissertation, and did he earn his PhD after validating his claim in front of a board of peers?
there are always degrees. and what i think isnt what my point was, im sure you'll agree. this is exactly what i am getting at, during my undergrad studies, for a sociology course i had a professor who was ultra conservative, homophobic, anti-abortionist, anti-semitic...the whole bit.
but i also understood that he was the product of a different time period and a different mindset. just because my precious sensibilities were repelled by his ethical beliefs doesnt mean he should have gotten fired. thats where humanism comes in.

 

[impirius]

This is news? One of my professors this term said almost the exact same thing. She made the case that terrorists are careful to make a distinction between governments and citizens, saying that they hate the governments but don't have anything against the people. I asked her why they chose targets such as the WTC, the OKC building, and public transportation in Israel, where the vast majority of victims would be private citizens or government employees in domestic service roles. She replied that those people were not innocent because they were part of the machinery that oppresses etc etc etc. And several of the students were lapping it up, although I'm not sure exactly which of the professor's opposite comments they were buying.

I would've continued arguing, but the conversation turned to Israel, and I had to explain the origins of modern-day Israel to the group because nobody else seemed to know it.

 

[iapetus]

Fire him. His radical views should NOT be in the classroom.

Every now and then I suddenly realise why it surprises me when I find myself agreeing with olimario...

 

[Gorey]

He may be right about 'business as usual in the United States'. Nevertheless, calling the WTC victims "little Eichmanns" does absolutely nothing for public discourse on the issue. It'll drive folks to one camp or the other...and that's it. All it results in is more partisanship and less coherent dialogue. Bleh.

 

[alejob]

Well if you view it from the terrorists perspective he would be correct. Therefore he is a terrorist.

But really, the WTC was a symbol and tool for Americas economic "dominance" of the world. Which is one thing that the terrorists are at war for.

 

[Dilbert]

I predict at least two people on this forum will agree with him.

Are you making specific predictions, or just throwing out a number?

Professors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want in front of students they are teaching. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't.

As nitewulf pointed out, they have every right to speak their mind. The school also has every right to fire them if what they say and do in the classroom doesn't contribute to learning. I simply don't believe in the "fragile impressionable mind" theory that people love to throw around. Part of learning is to critically analyze other points of view and either agree, disagree, or (more often) some mixture of both.

As far as what the professor said, the fact that he's throwing around phrases like "little Eichmanns" is clear evidence that he is TRYING to upset people and draw attention to himself. With that being said, people have a screwy notion of what "military target" means these days. We're only a couple of generations removed from a time when it was acceptable and even desirable to wipe out civilian centers as part of the usual business of combat. Do you think that all of Tokyo or London or Dresden was filled with military personnel and materiel during WWII? Of course not -- the goal was to terrorize people, cause as much damage as possible, and put a dent in the enemy's ability to fight. Our technology and innate do-goodness (or whatever it is) has spoiled us into thinking that war ought to be some bloodless videogame where only those who sign up to fight get hurt, and preferably not even them with our smart weapons and unmanned systems and satellite views. But not everyone thinks that way...and clearly the hijackers were among them.

 

[DarienA]

Hey now... terrorism is hard work... I know this because I see it on TV....

 

[Tarazet]

Somebody needs to tell this jackass that the New York branch of the U.N. headquarters were in the Secretariat building, not the World Trade Center.

 

[Hitokage]

Are you making specific predictions, or just throwing out a number?

I can think of one, but he's banned.

 

[Willco]

I can think of one, but he's banned.

... sabotage!

 

[karasu]

Really, I think he has a point. 9/11 was ugly, and wrong, but it's part of a cycle. It doesn't just pop out of nowhere.

 

[G4life98]

Way out of line in those WTC comments. That said:

is spot-on.

you are out of your fucking mind...nothing he said was "spot on", its like trying to justify columbine by saying " oh but those poor kids were bullied".

 

[Gorey]

........(snip)With that being said, people have a screwy notion of what "military target" means these days. We're only a couple of generations removed from a time when it was acceptable and even desirable to wipe out civilian centers as part of the usual business of combat. Do you think that all of Tokyo or London or Dresden was filled with military personnel and materiel during WWII? Of course not -- the goal was to terrorize people, cause as much damage as possible, and put a dent in the enemy's ability to fight. Our technology and innate do-goodness (or whatever it is) has spoiled us into thinking that war ought to be some bloodless videogame where only those who sign up to fight get hurt, and preferably not even them with our smart weapons and unmanned systems and satellite views. But not everyone thinks that way...and clearly the hijackers were among them.

Well said, I hadn't thought of that angle. Depressing, but very applicable.

 

[Guileless]

Really, I think he has a point. 9/11 was ugly, and wrong, but it's part of a cycle. It doesn't just pop out of nowhere.

So what's the cycle, and what does it have to do with his point? Where does it pop out of?

I hadn't thought of that angle. Depressing, but very applicable.

You know what's even more depressing than firebombing Tokyo? Invading the Japanese mainland a few months after Okinawa claimed the lives of 15,000 American soldiers.

 

[Macam]

I'm sure Fox News is gonging to shut down regular programing to dedicate 24 hours to this non-story.

Don't remind me. My gym insists on playing Fox News, notably the O'Reilly Show (alongside trashy music videos of gangster rap) and it was enough for me to sit there and endure the captioning of O'Reilly basing his show off Ted Turner's comments the other day. I really don't know if my gym is trying to drive people out or infuriate them abundantly so that they work out harder.

 

[demon]

you are out of your fucking mind...nothing he said was "spot on", its like trying to justify columbine by saying " oh but those poor kids were bullied".

1. He's not trying to justify it
2. That's a bad comparison in the first place

 

[Gorey]

You know what's even more depressing than firebombing Tokyo? Invading the Japanese mainland a few months after Okinawa claimed the lives of 15,000 American soldiers.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I didn't say a thing about the relevance of firebombing Tokyo, or the brutality of Okinawa. I was commenting on the fact that...get this...war sucks.

 

[Jdw40223]

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

Here's the juicy part...



Feed the "academia is nothing but liberals" bias!! Idiot..

I would bet top dollar he didn't have one stinkin family member in that building, 9-11-01.

 

[Phoenix]

Are you making specific predictions, or just throwing out a number?


As nitewulf pointed out, they have every right to speak their mind. The school also has every right to fire them if what they say and do in the classroom doesn't contribute to learning. I simply don't believe in the "fragile impressionable mind" theory that people love to throw around. Part of learning is to critically analyze other points of view and either agree, disagree, or (more often) some mixture of both.

Not really though, once a professor is tenured, they tend to not get fired even when they say or do truly wacko things. Its possible to get rid of them, but it gets really really hard.

With that being said, people have a screwy notion of what "military target" means these days. We're only a couple of generations removed from a time when it was acceptable and even desirable to wipe out civilian centers as part of the usual business of combat. Do you think that all of Tokyo or London or Dresden was filled with military personnel and materiel during WWII? Of course not -- the goal was to terrorize people, cause as much damage as possible, and put a dent in the enemy's ability to fight. Our technology and innate do-goodness (or whatever it is) has spoiled us into thinking that war ought to be some bloodless videogame where only those who sign up to fight get hurt, and preferably not even them with our smart weapons and unmanned systems and satellite views. But not everyone thinks that way...and clearly the hijackers were among them.

An interesting twist that neglects history. Over the years warfare HAS changed. You generally don't have acceptance of a winning armies right to rape women and take prisoners and slaves. You don't have an acceptance of just annexing a country. People SHOULD NOT accept that civilians are targets - especially not in a time of 'accepted peace'.

 

[Guileless]

I'm not sure what your point is here. I didn't say a thing about the relevance of firebombing Tokyo, or the brutality of Okinawa. I was commenting on the fact that...get this...war sucks.

Indeed it does. But as terrible as it is, a just war is preferable to allowing mass murderers the unchecked control of national war machines. That's why today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and recognize it as the abomination that it was. That's better than the Third Reich celebrating the anniversary of its opening, which is what it would be doing if the Allies had not gone to war to destroy it.

 

[Dilbert]

An interesting twist that neglects history. Over the years warfare HAS changed. You generally don't have acceptance of a winning armies right to rape women and take prisoners and slaves. You don't have an acceptance of just annexing a country. People SHOULD NOT accept that civilians are targets - especially not in a time of 'accepted peace'.

My only point is that the "general acceptance" is an unspoken social contract among the recognized powers which is ultimately arbitrary. The bad guys don't have to follow the Geneva Convention, and if it's in their best interest, they won't. Hey, speaking of the Geneva Convention, where are the war crimes charges in the World Court against the United States for the fictitious "enemy combatant" status? How come no one has challenged the legality of our invasion of Iraq in court?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Imagine spending $200 a credit hour to listen to a crackpot like this drone on .. (oh wait .. I did that).

It would be like paying $200 a credit hour to have someone teach you Calculus and barely speak English .. (I cripes .. I did that too).

Alot of these types are frustrated authors anyways .. so this article probably validated his whole existence, instead of shamng him.

 

[rastex]

Hey, speaking of the Geneva Convention, where are the war crimes charges in the World Court against the United States for the fictitious "enemy combatant" status? How come no one has challenged the legality of our invasion of Iraq in court?

Probably because they don't want to get invaded

I think that's what happened in Nicaragua.

 

[Zaptruder]

When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind

That is the truth.

 

[MetatronM]

What kind of asshat uses the word "gimme" in the main text of an essay?