I should not get as much pleasure from this woman’s pain as I do.
But she teaches neomarxist aanalysis, training the next generation of social activists, and is proud to have done it for 35 years. So the pain she is now getting because she is being called out for her beliefs is a foretaste. Of what the full measure she dealt is.

I do have to thank Ivan Throne, of Safe Streets, who tweeted about it.

Because he does understand that free speech runs both ways, and academic enquiry includes asking questions that are politically questionable. Instead, he wants his agenda met. He sees pain when this does not happen.

I’d argue that “Alt-Right” encompasses something far more ambitious and dangerous, especially with respect to the country’s most vital institutions: free elections, a free press, an open public square, and academic freedom. The Alt-Right endangers all of these in ways both as flagrantly racist and anti-Semitic as “Unite the Right” rallies—and as quietly cancerous as the growth of organizations aimed specifically at recruiting a young cadre of future white nationalists. Despite their misleading “free market,” libertarian-sounding mission statement, Turning Point USA, and its McCarthyesque Professor Watchlist demonstrably belong to the latter. Make no mistake, while the former and its Daily Stormer sycophants offer an ugly spectacle, it’s the latter that’s postioning itself to undermine the critical—existential—value of the university: the freedom to pursue evidence, ideas, arguments, and artistic expression to ends uncensored and unimpeded by ideological or economic constraints.

The very moniker, “Alt-Right,” offers polite cover, however thin, for the bigot who sports a tie (or Steve Bannon’s polo shirts), spouting the populist rhetoric of “law and order,” “economic nationalism,” “deregulation,” “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” and the like. But the necessity for cover hints at the profoundly dark and paranoid worldview that lies beneath, one that quite literally operates according to a dichotomy of white and black—good and evil—to support the kleptocratic authoritarian objectives of its beneficiaries. “Alt-Right” functions as both dog whistle and prophylactic; it’s as cool as an Indy Band or a video game, a crucial ingredient for the young folks Turning Point USA seeks to recruit. Most importantly, however, “Alt-Right” comes with its own built-in mechanism for plausible deniability, and it’s this that’s poised to become a weapon of mass destruction in the academy. Here’s why: what Turning Point’s Charlie Kirk (and his functional analogues at Project Veritas, Campus Reform, Truth Revolt, FrontPageMag, The Daily Caller, Breitbart, NewsMax, InfoWars, and even the Daily Stormer) has figured out is that the debilitating risk aversion endemic to university administrations virtually guarantees their complicity in the repression of academic freedom. Faced with the prospect of liability on the fictitious grounds that the refusal to offer formal recognition (and university largesse) to an organization somehow amounts to the denial of the free speech rights of its student chapter members, university bureaucracies not only hide behind the misleading mission statements offered by groups like Turning Point USA, in doing so they effectively choose the appearance of respect for free speech over its reality. Indeed, the sad truth at my own institution and many others is that while presenting the appearance of a commitment to diversity, inclusion, free expression, and even safety is crucial to the university’s brand, it turns out to have neither the capacity nor the courage to come to the defense of these values—at least where its faculty are concerned. I don’t doubt there are exceptions, but what’s also true is that within hours after I posted “Letter to my Colleagues” to my Academia.edu page profiling my own experience at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, I began to receive responses detailing the harrowing experiences of my colleagues not only with Professor Watchlist, but with administrations who chose the path of avoiding liability over the protection of academic freedom—indeed, even their faculty’s safety.

Well, the left are the ones with the lists. The Right’s list consists of this: those who have used their position to get someone no-platformed or sacked. This is a public service. No one should hire such.

But the best response is that of Stickwick, who, being female, understands the issues of status. in her bones. The topic was atheism, but atheists and progressives overlap.

But I utterly despise those who first proclaim that religion is a crutch, then promptly attempt to kick out that crutch from others who are reliant upon it. They are nasty little creatures.

They often rationalize it by saying that the crutch is evil, because oppression, repression, ignorance, war, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

Ironically, skepticism would appear to be its own crutch. I never did meet an outspoken atheist who wasn’t intensely insecure about something, whether his intelligence, credentials (often lack thereof), masculinity, sexual appeal, or social status. Skepticism has, at least up until now, allowed the atheist to axiomatically assign superiority to himself. That’s why atheists are so tenacious, to the point of absurdity.

Social academics reliably lie.
Social academics reliably project
Social academics reliably double down.

And social academics, who teach neo Marxist analysis, know that they are one with the buggy makers. They fear their loss of status. They have nothing else. Practitioners can always do what a critic cannot.

This intellectual cast is bankrupt.

Do not be them. laugh instead.