Follow by Email

Monday, November 14, 2011

What the Prof *really* means by "great student debate"...

Yesterday I got dismissed from a student discussion group. It was a Facebook discussion group for current and former students in anthropology at SIUE, where I currently attend. I took the course last spring, and occasionally browsed the page and commented. 

Last week, someone posted the following picture with the comment. "I couldn't agree more."
I read on to see some of the student comments, and as I have seen in so many other forums, a correlation was drawn between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party.

At this point, the professor chimed in with "Great student debate! I am truly enjoying watching you all think critically about the social criticisms going on in the world today."

I took the opportunity to point out a few of the fundamental differences between Occupy and the Tea Party - namely the fact that Occupy has a complicit mainstream media, the endorsement of many politicians and a stunning arrest record - while the Tea Party boasts none of those things. 

The professor responded with allegations of "misinformation presented by the Tea Party" and "discriminatory signage."

My response? I demanded examples of the "misinformation', as in my personal experience, Tea Party activists generally understand the Constitution and the way government is supposed to work better than the politicians who are supposed to be representing them.

As it turned out, she didn't have many examples of the misinformation. (The only specific things she mentioned were the "birther" issue and the rumor that Obama was a Muslim.) What she did have was a handful of links to articles that backed up her position. First up, a hit piece from the Washington post that was propaganda and race-baiting wrapped up nicely and labeled objective journalism. Next was a link to a CBS story which she prefaced by saying "I hate to use CBS because they are so conservatively biased." And finally, a story about Sheriff Joe Arpaio from the Huffington Post referencing "birthers." (That last included no warning concerning possible bias.)

I called her out on tossing a hit piece like it was fact. I cited a study on Media Bias that not only identified CBS as left of center, but specifically labeled some CBS affiliates as "far left" even in comparison to NBC. I then pointed out two very important things: First, the "birther" rumor was started during the 2008 primary by a friend of the Hillary Clinton campaign in order to hopefully disqualify Obama before he could even win the nomination. And second, more than one nationwide poll has concluded within the last two years that nearly one-fifth of all Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. 

Within hours I was kicked out of the discussion group and blocked from the page. No challenge. No rebuttal. No "great student debate." Just the simple split-second (cowardly) push of a button to remove my name from a list.


  1. Ginny, it's not easy to stand up for what you believe in especially when you know you are right. I am proud of you for being so involved and informed. Sorry that this happened. I hope it can be rectified.

  2. I'm actually not sorry in the least. I am getting way more mileage out of the fact that I got kicked out. Besides, the fact that she was willing to kick me out because I proved something true that she did not like says more about her than any legitimate argument she could have made.

  3. LOL. I know you've been brainwashed into thinking that you're better than everyone else, but you must understand that not everyone wants to live off tax dollars by raping, killing, and destroying. Not only are you receiving handouts in the form of salary, housing, veterans' services, etc., but you are willfully promoting the imperialist agenda of the corrupt US government--you are the reason the rest of the world despises the US. Fuck you and burn in hell after you get blown up by an IED, you entitled self-important POS baby-killing mooch.

  4. We cannot all be as brave as someone who anonymously and baselessly attacks someone on the internet, so kudos, we are all impressed by your courage.

    Just for the sake of argument, please cite your evidence that the author has been brainwashed. All you need to do is give a small measure of what must be overwhelming evidence you have collected that shows the author puts forth ideas or opinions that have absolutely no backing in fact or logic.

    Your next challenge is to specifically list occurrences of "raping, killing, and destroying" by the author. Given your apparent vast knowledge of the armed forces, I imagine you can immediately produce this evidence.

    As an aside, is English your first language? I only ask because the word "salary" specifically indicates payment for a job. Saying someone is receiving a "handout" in the form of "salary" displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the definition of either word. Further, housing and veterans' services are a part of a service contract in exchange for the work a member of the armed forces does. Which, again, makes me wonder if you have a full understanding of the word "handout". "Handout" is something you receive for doing nothing. Kind of like the Occupy movement was demanding.

    I cannot argue that the US government has a measure of corruption. However, in order to bolster your claim of an "imperialist agenda" please list, with citations, the countries the US has, by force, made a commonwealth, territory, or state in the past 100 years. I imagine there must be quite a few for you to so easily determine it is an "agenda".

    There is some small measure of irony that you have the chutzpah to call someone else a baby-killer (I await citations of this) while wishing death and damnation on that person for the crime of speaking their mind. I eagerly await your evidence that the author is "self-important" and that she has ever been a "mooch". I know you must have this evidence readily available as you took the time to post anonymously on piece from 2011.

    I await your further wisdom with anticipation.