LTE: A Response To ‘The Heights’ Coverage Of Coates’ Talk

To the Editor:

I truly did not intend to write. The Heights’ “At Coates Talk, Protestors Surface Narrative Of BC Racial Hypocrisy,” however, forces me to pick up my pen. While I do not want to criticize Shannon Longworth and Kelsey McGee, who wrote the story, their piece is indicative of a liberal hegemony that pervades so many college campuses around the country nowadays. We have become so accustomed to one point of view that we refuse even to consider any other than the orthodox “progressivism.” Of course, one might say, Miss Longworth and Miss McGee were trying only to report on what happened at the “Coates talk.” Yes, but that fails to address such descriptions as speaker Ta-Nehisi Coates’s giving his talk “…in a hall lined by portraits of Boston College’s 24 white Jesuit presidents…” There is no reason for the portraits’ description in supposedly objective reporting. When I read that, I did start to wonder when being white became a crime. Rather than objecting to the color of someone’s skin, shouldn’t we look more at that person’s character, morality, or even basic common sense?

I seem to recall someone saying that he wished his children to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their characters. Yet the modern liberal mindset seems not to heed Dr. King’s words but to jump in, without thought, to condemn “white privilege” and “inherent racial hypocrisy,” without ever judging people not as racial beings but as people. The liberals’ obsession with race is not only erroneous but ultimately tiring. Miss Longworth and Miss McGee clearly sympathize with Mr. Coates and his opinions—one wishes he could not tell their sympathies so obviously. The writers also detail the goals of “Eradicate Boston College Racism,” a group whose members showed up in droves at the event, but there is no alternative point of view, no defense for the University. One sees in this story less of a news article and more of a polemic. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. If the liberals’ relentless attacks on white people, on Christians, on conservatives, and on any dissenters from their absolutist dogmata do not end, I will not be surprised to find the whites and the Christians as the ones turned away from lunch counters and buses in the future, and the liberals will chuckle as their own power rises exponentially.

Karl Salzmann
A&S ’19

Featured Image by Julia Hopkins / Heights Staff


  1. This letter and the message behind it is typical of the easibly identifiable crowd that has demonstrated time and time again that they are missing the point in discussions of race. The same crowd of people that hears “Black Lives Matter” and unfailingly retaliates with a knee-jerk “All Lives Matter” response out of fear, ignorance, and a complete misunderstanding of the issues. Don’t be afraid, nobody is calling you a racist, not yet at least. The liberals are not trying to police your speech like you claim they are towards the end of your bizarre little letter (although it is kind of hypocritical of you, given that this is clearly a sad attempt at muzzling them via what is frankly some strange fear-mongering reminiscient of a dystopian Rand novel). Nobody is going to lynch you for being white, or conservative, or Christian. But what you are guilty of is being implicit in, and now defending, a system that has unremittingly favored being white, or conservative, or Christian. Consider this, why are you so content with and ready to defend the status quo, while these people are actively seeking change, risking sanctions by the BC administration and others? Obviously there are always going to be people dissatisfied with the way things are, but these are not people who are seeking to get a leg up on you. They want equality. While there is something to be said against the growing trend in some progressive circles of policing speech, this is not an instance of that trend.

    “Rather than objecting to the color of someone’s skin, shouldn’t we look more at that person’s character, morality, or even basic common sense?” This is easy for someone of privilege to say. But it is also agreeable; obviously this is the goal of liberals/progressives too. As of now, however, that is a fantasy perpetuated by people like you because you are comfortable in it. Women, people of color, and other minority groups are discriminated against every day on the basis of gender and race. People with “weird” names are demonstrably not placed on equal footing in hiring processes. Women in the workplace find it hard to ask for raises, speak up in meetings, etc. etc. because they don’t want to come off as “bitchy.” Young black men are very much not judged by the content of their character by the rotten institution that is American Law Enforcement. They are judged by, and unfortunately murdered because of, their race. As a person of relative privilege, you get to just be you. Other people don’t. Other people have to modify their behaviors according to what is in this system that you are so eager to defend, their disability.

  2. Hi Faraz–
    This is Karl Salzmann, who wrote this particular letter to the editor. Thanks for your comment; I appreciate any kind of feedback readers give, whether positive, negative, or indifferent. I do not want to turn this comment section into a debate arena, but I would like to emphasize a few points: the comment argument, yes, is “minority groups are being discriminated against in every way,” so we should therefore reverse the discrimination to “level the playing field.” I have heard this argument many, many times, and every time it just seems sillier than the last. I take issue with much of it, which we could do into in some detail, but let me just ask you this: why is it a zero-sum game? We have to take away rights from some people in order to give them to others? That seems both ridiculous and, in the end, rather discriminatory.
    You write, “They want equality.” Respectfully speaking, Faraz, define “equality” for me, and then we’ll talk. Do you mean “egalitarianism,” “sameness,” “equality of means,” “equality of opportunity,” etc.? As you can see, “equality” is a rather nebulous term; we need more substance to formulate arguments.
    Second question: why just “women, people of color, and other minority groups”? Define “minority” for me too, if you don’t mind. Hispanics now outnumber white people in this country (you might mean “social minority.” I disagree, but this verbiage might convey your point better). But why just them? I am from mostly Italian and German background (as you can see, “my people,” immigrants, had nothing to do with slavery and harbored no “racist” feelings). Italians and Germans have been discriminated against to huge degrees in our history. Should we do the same for them? “Italian Lives Matter,” maybe? I am also a Roman Catholic–a very hated minority (and, still, a “social minority”) at times in our history. (For more information, see William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale,” or just read the history of an organization like the Ku Klux Klan.) “Catholic Lives Matter,” then? (Maybe we could skew statistics so that a plethora of policemen go around killing Italians or Catholics. That would give us an extra edge.)
    Third, I understand very well the point about “weird names.” I was relentlessly made fun of in school for my “weird” German name. So I get it. All I can say is “Suck it up.” Harsh? Maybe. That’s life. I got over it, and people started to think of me not as a name but as a person. I needed no government programs or demonstrations for that.
    Fourth, I have read Ayn Rand. I can’t stand the lady, her books, or her philosophy. As one who has knows her work (I think) fairly well, my supposed “fear-mongering” has nothing to do with her dreadful ideology (or her style). (And would Miss Rand have ever defended Christians? She was a fanatical atheist, as I’m sure you know, Faraz!) I simply identify a trend that I see growing, and I stand by my claims. We may see the death of civilization, and we will see it all through the sacrifices to the almighty god “Equality.” Thanks again for your note, and I apologize for my loquaciousness in this response.
    Karl Salzmann

    • I would very much like to turn this into a debate in this comment section since I don’t think we can do it anywhere else.

      “”minority groups are being discriminated against in every way,” so we should therefore reverse the discrimination to “level the playing field.” I have heard this argument many, many times, and every time it just seems sillier than the last. I take issue with much of it”

      Misquoted me… every day not every way. So what part of this do you take issue with? The fact that discrimination exists, both institutionally and as a result of individuals’ prejudices? Or that there should be something done to put an end to discrimination. If it’s the former, then you are undeniably wrong. If it’s the latter, then I don’t think I want to continue this debate.

      It is not a zero-sum game. There are no “rights” being taken away from white people. If by “rights” you mean the PRIVILEGES (get the wording now?) that are randomly assigned and serve to benefit people because of something like the color of their skin at the EXPENSE of others then yes I want those “rights” taken away. I don’t think you understand the current state of racial affairs in our country. We cannot simply assume that because our policies are colorblind at the surface level that we are living in an all men are created equal society. And I do mean equality of opportunity. You seem to assume that in 1964 we somehow became a Lockean Year 0 where we are all now on an equal playing field with equal rights. No. Not the case. Years of government sponsored racism before 1964 had placed the black community at such a severe disadvantage that it is foolish to assume that just because there is no more explicit discrimination the community can just catch up. Especially because ever since then, practices such as redlining and the abhorrent war on drugs have continued to place the black community at a disadvantage while convincing people like you that it’s things like “black on black crime” that are doing the damage.

      Also, what Breitbart ass site did you hear that hispanics outnumber whites in the United States from? Anyways, I do mean social minority. Roman Catholics were discriminated against. Sure. But that changed. You say that Italians and Germans harbored no racism or had anything to do with slavery, but that’s exactly my point. Nobody is saying that you’re racist or that you are responsible for slavery. Anybody with a brain realizes that today, whether you are Roman-Catholic, Protestant, German, early-settler European, Italian, Irish, etc. etc. you still enjoy the benefit of being white to some degree at the expense of racial minorities. Cops don’t kill people for being Roman-Catholic today. I don’t need to skew statistics. If you can’t see that the black community is disproportionately harmed by police brutality, discrimination in the justice system, and targeted by initiatives like Voter ID laws, then you are simply not informed enough to debate with. People say black lives matter because when people, especially lots of “I’m not racist – I’m a liberal!” types, read or hear about the death of black teenagers on the local news they think “oh, just gang violence, doesn’t concern me” or “oh he must have been uncooperative with the police” People don’t say white lives matter because they don’t need to. The media, the government, everyone already makes us more than aware that they do.

      Missing the point about weird names. I don’t think you understand that when people see a name that predominantly belongs to a particular ethnic group they make assumptions that assign characteristics to the holder of that name. People make presumptions about you when your name is Mohammed. Nobody thinks you act a certain way because your name is Karl. And if they do, and it negatively affects you and a group of people like you unfairly, then why is it wrong to address that as an issue?

      The problem with your crowd is that they are so quick to dismiss instead of sympathize. Look and see that there are communities troubled and upset enough to take to the streets in protest and ask “what could be causing these issues?” instead of just saying “there is no issue.” If you don’t agree with their solutions, then offer your own alternatives. I think that if you truly want to call yourself a man for others, like BC calls upon its students and itself to do, then you need to treat others’ problems as if they are your own. Which is where I think the hypocrisy part addressed by the other article comes in.

      • Hi Faraz–

        I write that we should not turn this comment section into a debate forum because we could be here all night doing this. I’m sure that you have to get up tomorrow morning, and I do too. So I will not respond to your points (and there are other forums for this kind of debate, Faraz–we could both talk to Eagle Political Society and try to organize something, just so you know), I will just point out what I think are some times in your response that you unfairly besmirch my character.

        “If you can’t see that the black community is disproportionately harmed by police brutality, discrimination in the justice system, and targeted by initiatives like Voter ID laws, then you are simply not informed enough to debate with.”

        Well, well. If I’m not a smart enough person for you to debate, so be it. I would also like to point out that most of the greats of history were considered “not smart enough” by their peers, who therefore decided dogmatically and ideologically not to listen to another. (And, of course, the views of slaves were never heeded by their masters.) Anyway, respectfully, Faraz, I don’t see any of what you are saying–in its place, I see a liberal hegemony that wants to force its views on the rest of us and does it by skewing statistics and playing “race games” to advance its own power–but I still consider you informed enough to debate with (just not at this juncture). If you ever do decide to debate with me, we can, as I said, call up the Eagle Political Society. I am very interested in having that conversation as election season approaches. But I do think of myself as a fairly informed and intelligent person. From the indications given by your comments, I think of you the same way, Faraz–I just think we happen to disagree. Such is life and politics.

        “Roman Catholics were discriminated against. Sure. But that changed.”

        Did it? I invite you to look at the question in a broader way, and I recommend Prof. Philip Jenkins’s “The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.” Again, I do not want to go on too long, but let me just say that I personally know people who regularly and unquestionably discriminate against Catholics. These people tend to be white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and extremely, extremely liberal. They could not fathom a word being brought up against saintly blacks or Latinos, but Catholics are despicable and untrustworthy. Yes, I’ve heard these adjectives used, and I do ask you to consider your own prejudices before writing about what you think are mine or others’.

        I actually have a point-by-point breakdown of your comment planned (honest!), but, as I said, I don’t want to be here all night, so I’ll end here. I will leave you with this parting thought: The problem with your crowd is that they’re quick to believe instead of process rationally. I think that, if you want to call yourself a person for others, as BC asks you and me to do, you have to accept all the relevant data, and all viewpoints, before coming to a decision. You should not condemn others as “not informed enough to debate with” without considering (1) what the other person has said and (2) your own prejudices. I would like to state that, if you do post any more, I won’t respond; this is not out of rudeness or of inability to debate but simply because I think that this conversation would be better in another forum. I hope that we will be able to have it out further in the future!


  3. By the way, Faraz, I do hope that our crowd is indeed “easily identifiable.” That means we’re doing our jobs!

  4. Normally, I make it a habit to disregard bigotry. Not only because it is usually rooted in deeply entrenched beliefs that do not admit common sense, but because engaging in discussions with people who are intolerant of the opinion of others lends relevance to their ignorance. Yet, when I found myself reading Mr. Salzmann’s response to the Heights coverage of the Coates talk, I could not help but feel the need to write a response. Why? Because it did not seem fair to the rest of the student body to have the issue of racism be framed in such a simplistic duality. Meaning the issue of racism should not be reduced to a “black vs. white” dichotomy in which the only vocalized opinions are from extremist. I would say more, but I do not want to project my personal opinions in abstractions that have the appearence of rational positions.

    All I’ll say is that what makes a community is not the contingency of the past, but the possability of a shared future. We are all individuals here, and what matters more than the circumsances that brought us, is the time we spend together.

    • Hi Emile–

      Thanks for your response. As I wrote to Mr. Shahidpour, I appreciate any kind of feedback, whether positive, negative, or indifferent. Of course, I find your attitudes unfortunate, and I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks. I would like briefly to defend my own character, and then I will not write any more; this is not out of rudeness or inability to debate but simply because (as I have written previously) there are better forums for this kind of conversation.

      “Normally, I make it a habit to disregard bigotry.”

      Emile, I do find your implication, that I am a bigot, to be offensive. It certainly seems hypocritical inasmuch as you decry having “…the issue of racism…framed in such a simplistic duality.” Well, your accusation of bigotry seems an utterly simplistic duality: those who agree with you are non-racists (i.e., good), and those who disagree are racists (i.e., bad). I do wish that, if you are to accuse me of bigotry and racism, you would just go out and say it instead of skirting about the issue. Then, at least, you and I would know where we stand. I could cite numerous examples to prove that I am not a bigot, but you would probably not believe them. Oh, well: that’s your opinion, and you’ve got a right to it, wrong though it may be. I invite you to re-examine your comment in the light of your own statement that “…engaging in discussions with people who are intolerant of the opinion of others lends relevance to their ignorance.” Just a thought.

      I also fail to see whence you deduced bigotry in my letter to the editor. I invite you to read the last line of the first paragraph and the first two lines of the second paragraph. Please consider, too, the notion that not all who disagree with you, Emile, are bigots or racists. I think you are a fairly intelligent person with whom I just happen to disagree. You, unfortunately, jump to insulting my character–the very definition of ad hominem. I do take issue with that.

      Again, I will not respond if you post anything further; I have limited myself to one response per poster now simply for time reasons and for the fact that I have work to get done. As I said to Mr. Shahidpour, if you are interested in having this debate further, I would be very interested in organizing a more appropriate arena for it, preferably though the Eagle Political Society.


      • Mr. Salzmann,

        No where in my response do I call you a bigot, though the last sentence of your letter, (If the liberals’ relentless attacks on white people, on Christians, on conservatives, and on any dissenters from their absolutist dogmata do not end, I will not be surprised to find the whites and the Christians as the ones turned away from lunch counters and buses in the future, and the liberals will chuckle as their own power rises exponentially), does make you seem ignorant. For example, how exactly will bus drivers differentiate btween “chuckling liberals” and “the whites?”


        Emile Brown

  5. Dude you are literally such an ignorant, misinformed prick–and better believe that’s independent of your religion. Your responses to people’s legitimate comments are worse than this piece of shit article. You write in the most bloated, fluffy manner and are a lost cause in matters of human decency. Overall, you should feel bad about who you are.

    And yeah, this was absolutely an attack on you rather than the article–cuz there’s absolutely no way to argue with someone as blind as you.

    • Dear Mr. Martinez,

      I usually make it a policy not to respond to those comments that do not make a point, but I will respond to yours even if only to use it as an example. (As per Mr. Brown and Mr. Shahidpour’s comments, I stipulate that I will not respond to you after this message, even if you post more. This is a time issue.) You admit that your comments exhibit the ad hominem fallacy, so I cannot add much to what you have already written. You have no substance to your claim that I am an “ignorant, misinformed prick.” (And who said anything about my religion? I used it as an example at the end of the story to show larger concerns; the letter itself discussed racial and political questions, as Mr. Brown and Mr. Shahidpour, wrong though they may be, realized in their comments.)

      I “write in the most bloated, fluffy manner”? I would ask if you have ever taken a writing class or know anything about it, but that might take too much time. (And, if you want “fluffy,” just wait till I start quoting Latin poetry!)

      Your value judgments at the end of your first paragraph are ignorant, unsubstantiated, and rather silly. By the way, Mr. Martinez, if I were you, I would refrain from judging others until I had met them, talked with them, and understood where they’re “coming from.” I paraphrase Martin Luther King in the letter, and it might do you some good–indeed, a world of good–to start reading some of his speeches.

      “…there’s absolutely no way to argue with someone as blind as you”–I could say the same to you, but I will not descend to that level. I will just note that, though Mr. Shahidpour and (especially) Mr. Brown also engaged in ad hominem attacks on my characters, they made good (though erroneous) points, and we had a bit of a debate (though necessarily curtailed due to time issues). I was also in several debating societies and mock trial organizations, so saying that such a debate is impossible is more a reflection of you than of me. I also wonder exactly with whom you would debate, then. Those who agree with you on every issue? I may seem harsh in my response, and I apologize for that, but your comment was itself harsh and, unfortunately, rather naïve. I do wish you all the best and hope that, if you respond to political questions in the future, you will take the time to formulate arguments and make points.



      • My shit is unsubstantiated? Look at this comment thread, dude. You are apart of a shrinking ideological camp for a reason.

        You know what your fundamental problem is? You treat this is a political issue rather than a social one–your writing style is a direct reflection of this. All formality and stats with no semblance of compassion or regard for others’ experiences.

        For instance, one of the most infuriating things you’ve written is “Maybe we could skew statistics so that a plethora of policemen go around killing Italians or Catholics. That would give us an extra edge.”

        I could put that in quotes, throw it on the internet and you’d never feel safe again. You would probably have to watch your back whenever you left cozy Gonzaga. Would it be your fault? No–it’d be mine. Would it be fair to you? Absolutely not.

        Are you scared? Probably a little.

        Do you know what certain people in this country would call a force like that? Something that makes them concerned for their own safety at any given time? A force that they literally have NO control over?

        You probably have an idea but I’ll let you consider the example by your lonesome.

        You speak of skewed statistics. Again, why is this a matter of statistics? Leave your fucking house and experience the world. Experience what it’s like to be someone else before you go devalue their entire existence.

        Police officers in this country kill black Americans more than other ethnics groups. Are they all racist? Nah. Are they all a part of a system that tends to recognizes a certain person as more of an inherent threat than another person? Absofuckinglutely. I dare you to tell me that that is false. We can toss opinions around all day but you tell me that’s a lie and you are just dead-ass wrong.

        Also I had to laugh at you bringing up writing classes, freshman. I’d say I know just a liiiittle bit about writing–but I don’t really feel the need to list my credentials as a means of making myself seem smarter in a thinly-veiled attempt at bring others over to my losing team.

        And you’re right on two accounts: First, I attacked you. Do you see me denying that? Regretting it? It’s called emotion. Rage. I’m not sorry. I actually genuinely hope you have a shitty day. Maybe like spill your food in Mac? I dunno, dude. The world is your oyster. Make sure you never forget that just like any, young back male never forgets how he is viewed–never forget it like he never forgets that he is black.

        Second, I absolutely shouldn’t comment on political matters because I really don’t know much about them. It’s a good thing this isn’t one, huh, Salzmann?

        Just, in the future, try to color your arguments with some perspective, eh?

        • Wow- what a cry-bully, whiny prick you are. If I were Karl, I’d report you for threats. Learn how to not let your emotions dictate your actions… that’s what a child does. Adults use logic, reason and empathy. Grow up you punk.

  6. I’m glad this was written. Serves a great example of how some rationalize the ritualized oppression around them when they don’t even explore the underlying facts. Totally using this for a social studies project.
    The obvious obliviousness is terrifying. I hope it’s ignorance and not indifference because it means there’s potential for you to learn. You must have written this just to write it because you’re writing on a social issue but ignoring foundational historical implications.

    My favorite part was when you turned to your own life for anecdotes… Because Italian/Germans suffered systemic oppression in the same way people of color and women did, and continue to do, right? So then your next argument is, there should be no reason people of color complaining because Germans and Italians turned out okay? You have no experiences in your life that can even begin to align with marginalization, microaggression, constant, mindless attacks on the mere existence of racism ?such as this one). I’m sure it sounds intelligent to you, but please. Read this in like 4 years and see if you learned anything worthwhile. If this article still makes sense to you, Boston College and your family failed to educate you on the world that exists outside your neighborhood and BC.

    • Dear Tizzy Tiezazu–
      Thank you for your response. I only have a few points to make.
      First, I do hope you use my letter to the editor for your social studies project. More people might be converted to conservatism–or, at the very least, might begin to consider any point of view different from the majority “progressivism.”
      Second, I don’t know how to answer the point about your hope that my feelings represent “…ignorance and not indifference…” Best answer? I am neither ignorant nor indifferent. I simply look at facts, realities, and, yes, feelings. I do not make outrageous claims about groups of people just to increase my own power and status in the world. (That may have come off wrong–it’s not an attack on you but on the majority culture. I apologize if the wording suggests otherwise.)
      Third, I would advise that you reread my arguments, both in the article and in my comments. I would argue that you are unfortunately debating a straw man.
      Fourth, yes, my article does “sound intelligent” to me. I wouldn’t have written it otherwise.
      Fifth, I will take your advice and reread my article in four years. I invite you to do the same, and we can both record our feelings. If my opinions still have not changed, I would submit that that’s because I believe in what T.S. Eliot called “the permanent things”–not the whims and fads of chance and popular culture. If yours have changed, then I have achieved something with my letter.
      I wish you all the best.

  7. it’s good that everyone at BC gets their jobs through connections because you would otherwise be unemployable now that this article will be connected to your name in search engines forever

  8. This reads like a freshman post and someone who has lived a very specific type of life around a very specific type of people. I don’t know if that’s true or not, and I won’t make assumptions about you, but it very much READS as someone who doesn’t have friends outside their own race. I highly, HIGHLY suggest that you attend a FACEs meeting or some of the Dialogue on Race seminars (not sure if that exists anymore!) but they would enrich your viewpoint, if only so you can understand what you’re arguing against with names and faces behind it, not just your own inventions of the “liberals”.

    • To “Raquizzle”–
      Thank you for your response. As I noted to Tizzy Tiezazu above, I only have a few comments to make.
      First, yes, this is a freshman who wrote the letter to the editor. Next year, if I write a letter with the same concepts, will that be a “sophomore post”? Then a “junior post”? Then a “senior post”? Ad infinitum, ad nauseam? I fail to see the point, unless it’s some attack on my intelligence because of my age. (And what would you say to all those child prodigies, then?)
      Second, I thank you for saying that you will not make assumptions about my “very specific type of life,” although you do seem to make them anyway.
      Third, I can claim friendships with individuals from a wide variety of races, ethnicities, and homelands. I can give you links to information about these people if you so desired (although I don’t know if those people would appreciate it). Or you can simply talk to my family/neighborhood about people I know who are from different races than I. (You could also Google “MTSI 2013” and look at the results.)
      Fourth, please understand that not all members of a race share your politics. Have you ever heard of Prof. Thomas Sowell or Justice Clarence Thomas?
      I will look into the “FACES” program; I am never opposed to meeting new people and potentially having new friends. I hope that my suggestions enrich your viewpoints as well.

  9. Karl, you are so incredibly out of touch with reality, and I think it’s very fair for me to say you were not present when Ta-Nehisi Coates spoke last week, which does not give you the right to criticize the manner in which someone wrote about an event. Your views in general are also terribly ignorant and reflect an ultra-conservative mindset that compares the “persecution” of white Christians to what blacks have faced for hundreds of years. Your piece of shit LTE is racist, ignorant, and a direct attack on liberals, who you believe would refuse to serve white Christians at lunch counters like its fucking 1960 in Greensboro. You have such a limited world view, and I can hope in your next four years you pull your head out of your ass, get over your pompous self, and listen to someone else’s perspective for once in your goddamn life.

  10. I honestly thought this was a satire and am somewhat disturbed that it’s not. However, if it were an Onion article, it would be titled, “White everyman complains about lack of media attention towards white christians (for once).”

  11. This comment section is a case study in how new-era liberals rabidly foam at the mouth when given the opportunity to discredit white opinions. Unfortunately, Karl, you’re wasting your words – no matter how eloquently put – in trying to appeal to the racial rationale of the academic left. You can look forward to 3 & 3/4 more years of facing ad hominem attacks from the BC silver-spoon progressives and having your thoughts immediately discredited because you’re white.

    • Hi Nick–
      Well, at the very least, thanks for your sympathetic comment. I agree with you that many modern liberals do become fanatical when faced with opposing viewpoints; this is why I recommended that they look over their own words about “prejudice,” etc. I am used to the ad hominem attacks, but I do always try to defend my character and respond to any questions asked, and I don’t think my words are wasted (thanks for saying they’re elegant, though!). What I never appreciate is nastiness, and so many commentators–e.g., Evan Martinez–have been unapologetically nasty. Oh, well; what can we do except fight the good fight? Thanks again, and I wish you and your family a safe and happy Halloween.

Comments are closed.