Professor suspended for saying 那个 nà ge

> You: > inherent in an outgroup

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

Yes, when I said "this argument is closed minded", I wasn't talking about LGBT people. I was talking about your generic argument. (This is obvious from the context, since when I originally stated it, I stated "there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup.", note no mention of any specific outgroup. But for the specific example of LGBT people, I had previously noted that I did consider LGBT people to be an outgroup due to their minority status, and took objection solely and specifically to your equivocation between out-group-ness and wrongness).

Note that, more than once, you draw an equivalence between outgroup and morally wrong. I'll quote you doing it twice: "other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group", "something inherently out-group...something inherently wrong". That's twice where you write the same phrase substituting "out-group" for "[morally] wrong". I can draw no other conclusion than that you consider being an out-group to be equivalent to being morally wrong. This is a prejudiced view, and I stand by this claim. Note once again that the specific example is irrelevant. Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is closed minded.

> 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.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting, and did not ever suggest that you claimed that the left was discriminatory toward LGBT people, nor that LGBT people were an outgroup of the left. I claim that you did not originally qualify your statement as the LGBT community being an outgroup specifically of the left, and only began to later. (I should note that this too is obvious from the context, since I included the words "the qualifier", which you removed when you quoted me, and I italicized the qualifier "of the left" when I quoted you, making it clear what I was referring to)

The broader context here is that I'm claiming that the left defends LGBT rights, despite the LGBT community being an outgroup. It appears that you might claim something like the LGBT community isn't an outgroup of the left (but this is an essentially circular argument), so this is not showing open-mindedness. I wanted to avoid any such classes of arguments so pointed out this semantic shift early. You instead just didn't address the arguments I made at all.

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

I never said you did. To reiterate:

Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is prejudiced. The specific example doesn't matter. The line of reasoning is inherently closed-minded. It ascribes moral failings to the other solely by virtue of them being other.

And one again, you introduced this equivalence with your comparisons between outgroup-ness and moral-wrong-ness: "the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group"

Please don't accuse me of lying again. I did not, and I have not. And just for good measure, I'll once again present you the argument I've made, in its entirety, that you've still failed to address:

The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left.

Feel free to ignore everything in my post except that argument and chalk it up to one big misunderstanding. But please address that 3 sentence argument, because it demonstrates, quite concretely, the lack of open-mindedness on the right.

Apart from the impact to the professor and his students who have been denied a learning opportunity, this is the larger cultural problem - validating the simplistic "other side". Both teams are rallying around straw men for each other to attack, driving polarization over essentially nonsense. Meanwhile anyone arguing for sanity gets labeled as an other for not toting the unreasonable party line. Despite claiming to be opposed to one another, Cancellers and Trumpists are just two faces of the same destructive force.

Slavery has occurred in almost every society over the years, until the last two or three hundred years, including in Nigeria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Nigeria

See "Black rednecks and white liberals" by thomas sowell for more info (Thomas sowell is a black american economics professor and writer, for any in the audience who decide what is worth reading based on the skin color or ethnicity of the author)

Completely disagree. The professor did nothing wrong and shouldn't have to take the fall for anyone.

It's ultimately a question of ethics if the scenario is as you play it out. Is it ethical to effectively declare your guilt when you are innocent.

FYI, your etymology is wrong. The n word derives from spanish and latin for black (this itself possibly derived from the proto-indo-european for "night"). While Nigeria and the Niger river come from local African languages for "river", although that pronunciation itself is probably influenced by the same latin-for-black. What eventually became Nigeria was a British company founded in 1886, well after the n-word was in common use for anyone of dark skin.