Professor suspended for saying 那个 nà ge

Perhaps you don’t - that’s fine. But can you see why other people might need such a warning?

If you were teaching a foreign language word with a similar sound to “motherfucker” what reaction would you expect from your class of 18-21 year olds?

This is the crux of the matter for me.

It seems to me that an American professor teaching Chinese should be well aware that repeating a word that sounds like “nigger” might cause offence, and that therefore it would be wise to discuss this beforehand.

Its far from “impossible” to imagine that this situation would arise.

What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint.

> To suggest such a thing is closed minded.

First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims.

It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth?

----

I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response:

You: > inherent in an outgroup

What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup

You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left

What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights.

You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded.

What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT

In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said?

Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace.

---

I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.

You seem to be redefining terms at random. You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left, but you only recently added that qualifier. Changing your argument mid-conversation and then accusing me of misunderstanding you is, shall we say, bad manners.

The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. This makes the right intolerant. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. That's the entire argument. Everything else you're saying is distraction.

Note that "outgroup" never appears in this argument. The relationship between outgroups and morality was your invention.

> First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far.

It follows from the definitions. To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded.

> What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left?

Because you take attacks on the right personally, and intentionally misinterpret arguments that you feel pain the right negatively or paint the right well.

If it was a German professor talking about buttermilk do you think he would given a build up?