Psychiatrist describes to Yale audience her 'fantasies of unloading a revolver' into random 'white people'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 weeks ago  •  106 comments

By:   Lawrence Richard (MSN)

Psychiatrist describes to Yale audience her 'fantasies of unloading a revolver' into random 'white people'
A New York psychiatrist who told a crowd at Yale University that she fantasizes about killing random white people has defended her comments.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A New York psychiatrist who told a crowd at Yale University that she fantasizes about killing random white people has defended her comments.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

"I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f****** favor," said Dr. Aruna Khilanani in April.

The comment was made during a public lecture titled "The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind," which Khilanani gave at the Yale School of Medicine's Child Study Center on April 6.

The lecture included numerous criticisms of white people amid the admission that she fantasized about killing them.

During the lecture, Khilanani also said she stopped communicating with her white friends as "there are no good apples out there" because "white people make [her] blood boil."

"This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry," Khilanani continued, explaining she had "systematically" cut her "white friends" out of her life.

"Around five years ago, I took some actions. I systematically white-ghosted most of my white friends. I have less than 1% left," she said. "It was also a public service."

Khilanani has since defended the comments, saying in an interview published Friday, "Before I gave the talk, I said, I want you to observe your thoughts and feelings as I talk."


I interviewed a New York psychiatrist on the problem of the "white mind" and it was very illuminating https://t.co/0ZsvNRMAyB
— Katie Herzog (@kittypurrzog) June 4, 2021

"I said there's a difference between a thought, a fantasy, and an action. Now, my reflection on my own rage was actually that I was feeling impotent. So, that's where I was going with that. And kind of normalizing feelings of hatred. This is stuff that exists, and I need to dive deep within myself to reflect on how it is that I got here. So, there is a reality here, like, did I actually cut white people out of my life? Absolutely," she said.

While the initial lecture was open to the public, its video recording was reportedly only shared internally by the school.

Tags: News, Race and Diversity, Higher Education, Yale, Education, Racism

Original Author: Lawrence Richard

Original Location: Psychiatrist describes to Yale audience her 'fantasies of unloading a revolver' into random 'white people'


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Can anyone imagine the outrage had a white person said the same things about fantasizing about shooting black people for no reason other than they are black?

This person is obviously mentally ill, so I am wondering why she was speaking at Yale.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

Yale has lost its collective mind in the last few years. They probably love someone expressing the idea that they should all be murdered. They live in a twisted fantasy world where they generate self-esteem through self-loathing.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

Definitely a case of the shrink being much loonier than the patient!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2    2 weeks ago
"Definitely a case of the shrink being much loonier than the patient!"

This is where the expression "It takes one to know one" gains its credibility.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

I am wondering why her license has not been suspended for now with her being put on a psychiatric hold due to being a potential threat to others.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3    2 weeks ago
I am wondering why her license has not been suspended

could be she doesnt see patients , which she would need a lic to do, but as a researcher or lecturer, i doubt there is a lic for that or if it could even be licd. just like people dont need a lic to study why water is wet , or to study at all for that matter.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Good point but she needs to be removed from society as she is a threat to other people.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

I dont think thats a road i will go down.

as evidenced by the commentary so far here , its safe to say a bipartisan majority would agree , that her statements fall under the catagory of being crazy as a shithouse rat that lives in the basement of a memaws  outhouse.

better to let her caterwaul and people recognize the crazy for what it is .

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.3.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

She is a ticking time bomb and needs to be defused.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.4    one week ago

well , Im thinking a little differently actually. under normal situations , one hears such statements like this person made , would normally cause some immediate concern , prudence would say to take a real close look at the situation and the person .

 problem is all she did was state an opinion , there has been no action taken on her statement to bring them to being or reality on her part. even as disturbing or disgusting as i think it was to even have such thoughts.

I am sitting here having my morning coffee and a thought came across looking over the responses and thinking about what was said ,  pretty outlandish really to my thinking but i started thinking when someone says something like that it is to get a response .

This persons so called job is study , research and consultation , who is to say that the comments were not made using the public as research subjects that would not have to be paid? all that is needed for her to do what she does is to look at and analyze the comments and reactions to what was put forth and a hypothisis can be formed . she did say to look at your response/ reaction to what was said and not was actually said..

i am now sitting back and thinking , what if the statements made , were made to get raw reactions ? to base further study on ?  To me thats playing a mind game , a dangerous one because one never knows who may take such things seriously and take it to conclusion.

 And she is in the clear if anyone does decide to take actual action and starts doing things like that . The individual will simply say , i thought it was ok because so and so said they had the same thoughts ... she very well may have turned herself into a cognative provacatour , simply stirring things but never taking any real direct actions.

 Who knows , are we all just lab rats being watched for reactions to stimuli for studies purpose? or is there really a clear and present danger?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.3    one week ago

For some reason a old saying comes to mind. It is better to keep ones mouth shut and let the world think you a fool, than to open one's mouth and prove it. Seems this woman has opened her mouth in spades. I certainly consider her a fool!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.6    one week ago

She also seems disturbed to me.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.8  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.5    one week ago

She needs to go! Don't forget what we do know: She wrote, "I took some actions. . . ."  and this, "I systematically white-ghosted most of my white friends. I have less than 1% left," she said. "It was also a public service."

FYI: The Urban Dictionary definition of "ghosted": End a personal relationship with (someone) by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.

In my final opinion of her based of what I can hear in the bad audio and giving her benefit of doubt: She is crude, vulgar, and unprofessional considering the venue. At the worse she is a potential menace to society and needs to be cut off professionally and mentally evaluated.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.3.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.7    one week ago

I think that is putting it mildly. To quote a line from a famous Arnold movie, "In layman's terms, she's a loon!"

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.3.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.1    one week ago

I found the website for her office in New York City and it seems she is currently licensed and practicing in Upper Manhattan.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

Can we take this woman's guns away now?  Or do we have to wait until after she unloads it?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.1  CB   replied to  SteevieGee @1.4    2 weeks ago

In April she said the quiet part out-loud. What do we wait for her to improve on her own or to act?! Come on gun/gunless cultures: Buy a damn clue, already!!!  At the least, haul her 'behind' in for deep, thorough questioning and evaluation. She has explained that the stresses are present for her(self) to potentially detach from reality and go all "5150" on some really nice and decent white citizens!

That said, it is ironic to hear somebody (may be conservative?) ask to take away another person's Second Amendment liberty. (Though she is stupid enough to have brought condemnation down on herself!)

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
a public lecture titled "The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,"

Speaking of psychopathic . . . 

she fantasizes about killing random white people

I mean, is the irony of all this lost on her? Apparently, it is. These sanctimonious people can never seem to see or hear themselves.

Khilanani has since defended the comments, saying in an interview published Friday, "Before I gave the talk, I said, I want you to observe your thoughts and feelings as I talk."

How is that a defense of the comments? It’s not like she’s saying she didn’t mean it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

Like I said I’d h e to listen to the whole thing, maybe there is some reflection point or larger pout. To be mad eta the end? Idk but for now that’s fucked up and someone needs to lose their job.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
2.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1    2 weeks ago

Good god, sorry for that comment, did it on my phone and only now read it. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

Psychopathic? Sounds more like psychotic!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
3  MonsterMash    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1  CB   replied to  MonsterMash @3    2 weeks ago

That meme is pure ignorance. I condemn it like I condemn Dr. Aruna Khilanani's racist remarks and her coarseness of language!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
4  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

I’d have to listen to the whole thing to make a fair assessment, but I’m thinking someone needs to lose their job... Sounds pretty fucked up from where I’m sitting. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    2 weeks ago

I am listening to the audio (it is poor quality; the 'author' of the audio apologizes for that too.) It is a lot of cussing and shock-value, "non-pc" talk. Oddly, as I am only seventeen minutes in and it sounds like she being too direct and crude using outrage as a tool to be so. I will struggle to hear it out to conclusion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    2 weeks ago

I finished listening to it. The audio ends at the beginning of a Q/A session by the host, where this doctor could have gotten some push-back and may be provide some additional context for her outrage. However, talking cavalierly in public about shooting anybody in the head at-known shooting a race of people in the 'head' is a no-no; non-starter for me. I probably would have walked out on her in the beginning or middle of the lecture making a display of doing so.

(Note: More than once I was anxious to 'tune-out' on this audio track, because of its weak value and questionable productiveness to me.)

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
4.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @4.2    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the opinion on it. Sounds like the speaker was just more or less talking about how they hate white people and want to kill us...and that's basically it. Seems as though there is really no value to it except to be a hateful ass and upset people. Hopefully their employer parts ways. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.2  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

I am 'rocked' every time I hear such remarks made in any quarters. I am specifically uncomfortable with her being a mental health professional willing to speak publicly about something 'wrong' in herself without labeling it as such.

We can fix what is wrong with us as a species through talk, growth and development, and persuading and correcting 'hearts and minds,' but to stand before a likely highly mixed audience and tell the assembled, I would like to see some of you with your brains blow out and then to 'pour over' it - she should have had her mic cut! At the end, the host actually made a remark about the significance of her 'talk' before moving on.0

Moreover, in a 'follow-up' interview she stated this to an interviewer (in Bold coloring):

So you don’t think that you are generalizing?  This idea that I’m the one generalizing is actually defensive. Do I really believe on some level that every single white person is racist? No. Clearly. I have one percent left of that friend group. [In the lecture, Dr. Khilanani explains she has cut most of her white friends out of her life.] So no, I don’t. At the same time, I'm saying how it functions psychologically when someone says “You can’t say that,” and “Not all of us,” what you’re saying subconsciously is “I’m the exception to what you just said and you made me feel like I'm a racist and I don't experience myself that way. I do not want to experience myself as a racist and I'm going to turn the tables on you and say you're the racist because you're generalizing and that’s what a racist does."

. . . .

Clearly the national conversation has changed a lot. I think in 2007, 2008, there were probably very few people who knew what anti-racism was. There was a lot more ignorance on the part of white people. Do you think things have changed in any meaningful way? 

In some places things are starting to change, in other places, they really can’t reflect on themselves because there’s a lot to lose. I have a question for you. 

Sure. 

Is what you're writing going to be from a conservative perspective?

Well, I’m not conservative so, no.   

I ask because I actually think that conservatives are psychologically healthier. 

Interesting. 

They are more in touch with their anger and negative feelings. They can articulate it. They can say it, they’re not covering it up or like “Oh my god, I’m amazing, I love all people.” There's not all this liberal fluff of goodness. Conservatives can go there. They can say things that are uncomfortable that I think liberals would shirk at or move away from or deny. 

I would feel more comfortable hanging out with Ann Coulter than a lot of liberals because she’s unlikely to do anything. She’s in contact with her anger and her hatred, and I think that needs to be worked through, don't get me wrong, for the country to heal, but she's actually in contact with those feelings that a lot of people can't say out loud and that's a safer space. Now do I agree with her? No. But liberals have no access to that at all. The thought is forbidden. 

It sounds like what you're saying is that you think liberals would be healthier if they expressed racism. 

Absolutely. Well, not racism , because racism is an action. Racism occurs in a couple situations: when you are unaware of aspects of your unconscious, then it will come out in the form of an action. So if you are not aware of your own hatred and rage, it’s going to come out in an action if the feeling is not metabolized. For people who can say that they hate something and work through that feeling, then there’s more hope there. That’s where the work really needs to happen. I can’t really help the liberal who says, “There’s no problem here.” I can't do that much with that person. This country doesn't really give white people the tools to deal with their negative feelings. 

NOTE: None of that Q & A helps her 'cause.'

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
4.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

That almost makes her "argument" worse. She is essentially arguing "let's have a totally openly racist society so everyone know where everyone else stands." Yeah, we did that once, didn't work out so well for those who weren't a majority. 

I get the feeling she wouldn't like where she fell on the ladder, she wouldn't be a "professor" at least lol. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.4  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

She is arguing for pulling the bandage covering off the festering 'wound' of racism. Go at it raw. No anesthetic. No whiskey. No chaser.  That would make a lot of sense, if she had not added the 'bit' about killing (White) people wholesale. That is simply too over the top. She is not listening to her own diagnosis. White liberals are not racists for not having solved racism against minorities. The task is a monumental thing. And there is no prevailing counterbalance on the other side aiding in 'lifting' the bar. That is, all the 'helpers' to end racism in our country exist on one end. The other side essential to balance out the problem won't take a seat!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
4.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
That would make a lot of sense, if she had not added the 'bit' about killing (White) people wholesale.

Lol yeah, I kinda take issue with that. And you will never guess the reason why.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.6  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

Okay, now I'm interested. Tell.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

"Around five years ago, I took some actions. I systematically white-ghosted most of my white friends. I have less than 1% left," she said. 

HMMM, chooses friends by the color of their skin and not based on their opinions beliefs and ideals ..... interesting....isnt that what racists do?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    2 weeks ago

She is missing out on a lot of good, decent, white people. That's for sure. She is racist and she would be better off to put her outrage in proper context or letting it go. (Whatever, "letting it go" means.) Did I hear her out - Yes! I listened to her audience (poor sound quality and all) and though she really does not get progressively worse. . . she does not make her case anymore agreeable. I mean at the least, she has a point of view - a perspective - and I say that despite how scattered her thoughts are in this lecture, but her declarative imaginary attack statements on White People—I wholly condemn.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @5.1    2 weeks ago
She is missing out on a lot of good, decent, white people. That's for sure.

I agree, only thing i would say different would be the ommission of race of any kind , race does not dictate if a person is good or decent . that is what i have learned in life and what i have taught my kids and am trying to instill in my grandkids .

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
5.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

I've been instilling in my girls that the only thing that really matters about a person is what is between their ears. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.3  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

Race is not an indicator of much outside of features. And still many millions all across the world stumble over skin features.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
5.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Race isn't an indicator of much of anything. It signifies a slight difference in a few genes, primarily the one that controls the melanoma in your skin. Makes zero fucking difference in how useful or how much of an asshole a person is. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

agreed  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.6  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

Melanin is great stuff!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
5.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    2 weeks ago

I guess that the "content of their character" matters not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
6.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm not defending anybody. 

In the video below , a white woman outside a CVS store says, to the camera, "if it wasn't against the law for me to kill niggers, they would all be dead". 

Black people have far more reason to lose their minds and make threats than whites do. Far more. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
6.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Black people have far more reason to lose their minds and make threats than whites do. Far more. 

How would you know how a black person thinks and feels?

Your isolated examples of racist whites say nothing about the topic

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Black people have far more reason to lose their minds and make threats than whites do

That sounds like nothing more than an excuse for her racist remarks.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

what is the topic?

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
6.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.3    2 weeks ago
How would you know how a black person thinks and feels?

Because most white liberals feel as if they need to answer for blacks. Keeps them on the democratic plantation.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
6.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

No we don't.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.8  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

Let bugsy 'bug out' on plantation (that's so last year) shit. Who cares about that 'rabbit hole.' We have a racist doctor to contend with. She needs to stand down!

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
6.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

Yes, they do

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

start at :52 mark

Allowed, directly addresses comment 1  SP

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

Dr. Aruna Khilanani should be 'hit in the pocket' as said by Roland's guest. That is, she needs to lose her job! She is wrong for mixing with society with her mindset (explained the way she shares it).

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

When it comes out of that person, she's universally recognized as a lunatic - a "crazy ass white woman" - and justifiably so. But when it comes out of Dr. Aruna Khilanani, for some reason, she's treated like a brilliant scholar and gets to speak at Yale. That's "crazy ass."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    2 weeks ago

Maybe they won't invite her back to Yale. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    2 weeks ago

She should be banned from every campus in America.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
7.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    2 weeks ago

She needs to be fired. I didn't listen to it but according to CB she basically just says that kind of shit for the entirety of the talk and it doesn't really go anywhere. It just seems as though she is little more than a racist bitch. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.4  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.3    2 weeks ago

She drones on (and its a poor audio production, though I have don't think better audio would fix her overall inflection trajectory). This is a crude exposition of her worldview and she would have been more responsible to keep it to herself! In her heart if you will until she can fix it out of sight of others.

To subject a mixed audience to a speaker 'vomiting' out death-wishing makes nearly anything that comes after of lesser and no value. She needs to be fired. So she can go figure herself out away from impressionable minds.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.5  CB   replied to  CB @7.2.4    2 weeks ago

Thrawn and others what she gave this audience as insight into her 'state of mind' reminded me of a manifesto (horrifically) penned by Elliott Rodger, the Santa Barbara, California college shooter : (Excerpt from the mind of a murderer:)

The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates,to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that,I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life,I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them,strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of. When they are dead, I will behead them and keep their heads in a bag, for their heads will play a major role in the final phase. 

In my opinion, this vivid and savage imagery is similar to what Dr. Khilanani engaged in her lecture publicly. Elliott Rodger did not 'skin and scald' his victims alive - thankfully. He did go on a killing spree. Dr. Khilanani needs a psyche evaluation and 'stat.'

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
7.2.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @7.2.5    2 weeks ago

Wow, what a horrible piece of shit. Both of them.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
7.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  CB @7.2.4    2 weeks ago

In addition to her racism, she also comes off as a huge narcissist who just loves to hear herself talk.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.8  CB   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.7    2 weeks ago

I will agree with that. She does seem unapologetic and to enjoy 'flirtin' with disaster. It makes me wonder what is her endgame. Career, lecture circuit, 'celebrity status,' or outrage politics?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
7.2.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  CB @7.2.8    one week ago

I think equal amounts of all of the above probably apply.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.10  CB   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.9    one week ago

Career medical professional? Iffy. The rest together?  Can work in some venues.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

People need to stay on topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Gee, I am a little surprised that no one had suggested this woman be banned from buying any gun!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

Good point. And I did think about this early on in reading the article. She should and it is highly probable has been reported to authorities.  Moreover, she seems to desire her outrage lecture goes viral! I think she does her profession a disservice to lecture under her area of expertise. I can not imagine what the thinking of academics are to let her begin, continue, and 'close' her lecture in this manner. The spoken imagery in the lecture is 'compoundingly' atrocious.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
9.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  CB @9.1    2 weeks ago

With her mindset, I cannot help but pity any who have had the misfortune to be counselled by someone like her.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.2  CB   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

And people just sat there in the lecture under the abuse of her voice/words. I wish I could see the video (version) of the lecture (it was recorded). I would like to determine body language and facial and movements. That (bad) audio version does her position no favors!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
9.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

She should be.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
10  Krishna    2 weeks ago

Thanks for enlightening us!

A warning that must be heeded: everyone knows that if one psychiatrist has this fantasy-- then obviously most of them do!!!

Hundreds of psychiatrists-- perhaps even thousands!

Scary stuff, eh?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @10    2 weeks ago

I trust that more people were wondering why she was invited to speak at Yale rather than labeling an entire profession based on what one nut-job says or thinks.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    2 weeks ago

Key: Dr. Aruna Khilanani ; Interviewer .

Let's talk about your talk, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” How did you get invited to do Grand Rounds at Yale in the first place? 

I was invited to do it. A big part of my practice is also doing consultations for marginalized people and how they've been harmed in treatments, usually psychiatric or psychological treatments.

Ok so the talk was in April, and it was public? 

Yes. 

So walk me through what happened. You get invited, you give them the title of the talk, and then what?

Nothing. There was not a response for a long period of time. I was kind of surprised because usually people want to know a lot of details. And then I think, and I’m not sure about this, maybe they only put the announcement out the day before. 

So not a lot of notice.  

I’m not sure. This is what I think because I only got the concerns as relayed to me from the dean right before. I didn’t hear any concerns prior to that.  

Let me pull up the email you forwarded me from the dean real quick. The message is from someone in the department to the dean and it says: “Good morning, I was surprised to see the announcement for tomorrow’s grand rounds. I imagine replacing the words ‘white mind’ with ‘Asian mind’ or ‘gay mind’ as we work towards equity and inclusion and unity. I wonder what impact this presentation will have.” Let's just address that. “Imagine replacing the words ‘white mind’ with ‘Asian mind’ or ‘gay mind’ as we work towards equity and inclusion and unity.” What’s your response to this? Does this person have a point? 

I think part of the anxiety is my using the word “white” and them having to reflect on that. And there was the use of the word “equity.” When I’m breaking this down psychologically, what they’re saying on some level is like, “We need things to be the same. If you can say ‘white,’ we can say ‘Asian.’” Psychologically, they’re actually making a false equivalence. What they’re doing psychologically is obliterating the difference between white and Asian, and if you obliterate the difference there’s no fucking problem here so shut up, you're the real racist. That’s how it functions psychologically. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

All very nice publicity for the doctor, but really doesn't have squat to do as to why she should be invited to any college campus in the future, or explains why Yale screwed the pooch on this.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.2    2 weeks ago
Grand Rounds at the Yale Child Study Center Grand Rounds is a weekly forum for the Yale Child Study Center faculty, staff and affiliates to come together and learn about all aspects relevant to the mental health of children, adolescents and their families and communities. Grand Rounds participation is open, multidisciplinary, and welcoming to all; topics range from the molecular to the societal and all points in between; presenters include a wide swath of professional backgrounds and expertise. The Yale Child Study Center has the oldest Grand Rounds series exclusively dedicated to topics in child psychiatry and allied disciplines
| Statement from YSM
On April 6, a speaker who is not affiliated with Yale gave a Child Study Center Grand Rounds talk, with the provocative title “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” After the event, several faculty members expressed concern to the Yale School of Medicine’s Office of Academic and Professional Development and the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion about the content of the talk.

Based on these concerns, School of Medicine leaders, including Dean Brown and Deputy Dean Latimore, in consultation with the Chair of the Child Study Center, reviewed a recording of the talk and found the tone and content antithetical to the values of the school. Because Grand Rounds are typically posted online after the event and in consideration of Yale’s commitment to the right of free expression, school leaders further reviewed the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale .

In deciding whether to post the video, we weighed our grave concern about the extreme hostility, imagery of violence, and profanity expressed by the speaker against our commitment to freedom of expression. We ultimately decided to post the video with access limited to those who could have attended the talk— the members of the Yale community. To emphasize that the ideas expressed by the speaker conflict with the core values of Yale School of Medicine, we added the disclaimer: “This video contains profanity and imagery of violence. Yale School of Medicine expects the members of our community to speak respectfully to one another and to avoid the use of profanity as a matter of professionalism and acknowledgment of our common humanity. Yale School of Medicine does not condone imagery of violence or racism against any group.”

. . . .
Social Justice
Promotes a society that challenges injustice and values diversity. It aims to keep us attuned to, and respectful of one another, in the workplace as in our clinical encounters. It aims to ensure that no one is discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliation, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or any other characteristic of background or group membership .

That is as close as I can get to an answer for you. Cheers!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.3    2 weeks ago
That is as close as I can get to an answer for you. Cheers!

So we are still where we started--why did Yale invite such a nitwit to begin with?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

Actually we are moving forward incrementally. Let me give you this approach to an answer:

Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale
The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.
We take a chance, as the First Amendment takes a chance, when we commit ourselves to the idea that the results of free expression are to the general benefit in the long run, however unpleasant they may appear at the time . The validity of such a belief cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It is a belief of recent historical development, even within universities, one embodied in American constitutional doctrine but not widely shared outside the academic world, and denied in theory and in practice by much of the world most of the time.
Because few other institutions in our society have the same central function, few assign such high priority to freedom of expression. Few are expected to. Because no other kind of institution combines the discovery and dissemination of basic knowledge with teaching, none confronts quite the same problems as a university.
For if a university is a place for knowledge, it is also a special kind of small society. Yet it is not primarily a fellowship, a club, a circle of friends, a replica of the civil society outside it. Without sacrificing its central purpose, it cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect . To be sure, these are important values; other institutions may properly assign them the highest, and not merely a subordinate priority; and a good university will seek and may in some significant measure attain these ends. But it will never let these values, important as they are, override its central purpose.
We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.
If the priority assigned to free expression by the nature of a university is to be maintained in practice, clearly the responsibility for maintaining that priority rests with its members. By voluntarily taking up membership in a university and thereby asserting a claim to its rights and privileges, members also acknowledge the existence of certain obligations upon themselves and their fellows.
Above all, every member of the university has an obligation to permit free expression in the university. No member has a right to prevent such expression. Every official of the university, moreover, has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed.
The strength of these obligations, and the willingness to respect and comply with them, probably depend less on the expectation of punishment for violation than they do on the presence of a widely shared belief in the primacy of free expression.
Nonetheless, we believe that the positive obligation to protect and respect free expression shared by all members of the university should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions, because obstruction of such expression threatens the central function of the university. We further believe that such sanctions should be made explicit, so that potential violators will be aware of the consequences of their intended acts.
In addition to the university’s primary obligation to protect free expression there are also ethical responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. Though these are much more difficult to state clearly, they are of great importance. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose, and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding.
S hock, hurt, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly. No member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use, slurs and epithets intended to discredit another’s race, ethnic group, religion, or sex.
It may sometimes be necessary in a university for civility and mutual respect to be superseded by the need to guarantee free expression. The values superseded are nevertheless important, and every member of the university community should consider them in exercising the fundamental right to free expression.
We have considered the opposing argument that behavior which violates these social and ethical considerations should be made subject to formal sanctions, and the argument that such behavior entitles others to prevent speech they might regard as offensive. Our conviction that the central purpose of the university is to foster the free access of knowledge compels us to reject both of these arguments. They assert a right to prevent free expression. They rest upon the assumption that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive. They deny what Justice Holmes termed ”freedom for the thought that we hate.” They make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.
The conclusions we draw, then, are these: even when some members of the university community fail to meet their social and ethical responsibilities, the paramount obligation of the university is to protect their right to free expression. This obligation can and should be en­ forced by appropriate formal sanctions. If the university’s overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained, secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of suasion, example, and argument.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.5    2 weeks ago

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Seems as if Yale is somewhat conflicted--or downright prejudiced.

Federal Investigation Into Anti-Christian Bias at Yale (churchmilitant.com)

Fact remains this lunatic of a woman should be banned permanently from every campus in America.

The only reason to not be banned is simply because she is a woman of color.

If a white woman said about blacks what she did about whites, liberal progressives would be falling all over themselves in their haste to condemn and rebuke instead of jumping to her defense.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.6    2 weeks ago

@5.1 and @7.1.

I did not feel the need to mention (until now) that this Report' (above) was written in 1974. So Yale is not acting on any 'color' in the present moment. I suggest you take them at their long established word.

I don't represent 'liberal progressives" per se. I have given you my honest assessments throughout your seed/article (see CB). I hope you recognize that sometimes we bring hearts and minds along individually and/or collectively. And, as you know, I am a person of color.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.7    2 weeks ago
I suggest you take them at their long established word.

Poor, misguided suggestion.

I take them at their actions. Current actions. Not something they wrote about decades ago, but real actions taken recently.

I suggest a dose of reality.

The color of your skin or mine is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.8    2 weeks ago

Wow. "Pale Shelter and cold hands.*" After all that.

Well, you can always call them and register your 'complaint.' Here I will aid you in getting off and running on it:

Yale School of Medicine

Child Study Center

Phone Numbers

Central Office

General Information 203-785-2540
Director’s Office 203-785-5759

Address:
School of the 21st CenturyThe Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy310 Prospect StreetNew Haven, CT 06511-2187

National 21C office:

203.432.9944

yale21C@yale.edu.

*Pale Shelter. Song by Tears For Fears. Written by Roland Orzabal and sung by bassist Curt Smith. 1982/1985 releases.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.9    2 weeks ago

Thanks, but I already know how to contact them.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.8    2 weeks ago
The color of your skin or mine is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't accept you telling me where my skin color is welcomed or not in discussion, Texan.

And, since you think you believe that why does her/or another's color weigh in your assertion/statement:

The only reason to not be banned is simply because she is a woman of color.

If a white woman said about blacks what she did about whites, liberal progressives would be falling all over themselves in their haste to condemn and rebuke instead of jumping to her defense.

- Texan1211

Be consistent, and not of two-minds about skin color.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.11    2 weeks ago
I don't accept you telling me where my skin color is welcomed or not in discussion, Texan.

I already said it, so what you accept is of no consequence.

Had a white person said comparable things, the outcry would be impossible to ignore. 

That is just a fact. But since she was not white, it is accepted.

I call bullshit on giving people a pass for what they do or say based on nothing more than their color.

I won't do it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.12    2 weeks ago

Well I'm fine with you finding yourself some liberal progressives who will let you eat them 'whole.' . Because I ain't it. And you will not disrespect my mentioning my own racial 'self' in discussion. I will not be exploited as a pretext to spout some conservative bull patty,. . .Texan.

And as for the rest of. . . that. . . it's all some conservative having a go at its own head, 'boo.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.13    2 weeks ago
And you will not disrespect my mentioning my own racial 'self' in discussion.

No offense meant, and if taken, sounds much like a personal problem to me.

You are free to excuse her because she is black.

But that doesn't mean I will.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.15  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.14    2 weeks ago
You are free to excuse her because she is black.

Read through your own comment section: Emphasis on "CB." Do specifically point to where "CB" extended 'excuse' for Dr. Aruna Khilanani's stupe.

Just do it. Don't talk about it: Be about it. Please proceed.because one of us is misinformed about my intent and motivation. I'm waiting. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.16  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.15    2 weeks ago
I'm waiting. 

Wait no more.

Please learn the difference between "Free to do something" and "You did something".

Thanks.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.16    2 weeks ago

Yeah. Thought so! Exploitation—epic failure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.18  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.17    2 weeks ago
Exploitation

One victim card played. Check.

Epic failure

On the mark.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.19  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.18    2 weeks ago

What we have here is some conservatives who can not take 'Yes' and support for the truth (that Dr. Aruna Khilanani has 'soiled' herself and is receiving proper and suitable criticisms for having done so from Yale U. and beyond) as an answer. Some pathetic types make a u-turn, attack, and make vain attempts to eat the 'assemblage'!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.20  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.19    2 weeks ago

This is boring.

Moving on.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.21  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.20    2 weeks ago

Acknowledged!

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
10.2  zuksam  replied to  Krishna @10    2 weeks ago

What would happen if this had been a white psychiatrist speaking about his/her fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any black person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f****** favor.  She has the right to say what she want's but the repercussions should be the same no matter what her skin color. Racism is wrong no matter what race you hate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  zuksam @10.2    2 weeks ago

White people  (some) are desperate to find equivalency between outlandish things blacks say and the comments of openly white racists. 

There is no such equialency. Black racism is almost entirely a reaction to centuries of white racism.  People who refuse to understand that are no help to anything. 

Is this black psychiatrist way over the line? It would seem so, although I think her comments, in her mind, were more connected to psychiatry than to simple race baiting. 

She badly misjudged what the reaction would be to her comments. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
She badly misjudged what the reaction would be to her comments. 

We have seen racists do that plenty of times before.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.2.3  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
Is this black psychiatrist way over the line? It would seem so, although I think her comments, in her mind, were more connected to psychiatry than to simple race baiting.

Yes, she is way over the line. JR, she vomited out her own foul conscience  trying to connect others to theirs. All the while, she did not take stock of the distraction of her words. That those "images" would cause people to at first or on doubling-back question if she is well, stable, or a menace to society.

She forsaked her mission to explain the horrors and failings of systemic racism and those you ignore racism to uphold the status quo. She has become the story in need of immediate scrutiny.

'I want to murder you as a favor to society' (paraphrase) is a non-conductive problem-solving discussion starter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

I listened to some of the talk at the link, but it was too depressing to listen to all the way through. There is no doubt in my mind that the woman was trying to connect her comments to a general psychiatric commentary. 

She reminds me a little bit of Frances Cress Welsing, who was also a black psychiatrist.  If you dont know who that was google it or search her on wikipedia. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.2.5  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.4    2 weeks ago

Thank you for your response, J.R. I value your input always. You do your part to make it happen!

I will seek out Frances Welsing (real soon and get back to you). In the meantime, I just have to say on the bad audio I can discern something of analysis/consciousness thinking being attempted. However, when you speak about putting physical 'hands' on someone or separating their thinking parts from their skulls—in a none humorous manner. . . you likely have gone too far off the deepest end.

Saturday Night I watched a whether silly movie: Hostel III. One of the scenes is this avant garde - "creature lady" that shoots this young man with eight arrows to his trump (full throttle) and he is still alive. Then she does this: She gets in close to him and shoots and arrow "shot-gun style" up through his mouth to top of skull.

That last shot, the ninth arrow, is the "kill shot." He appears to be still and 'frozen' after it.

That is the imagery this Dr. who is a psychiatrist chose to convey her disdain for white people's conversation and racial treatment towards her. It's wrong. There is no coming back for that kind of 'ordeal' to talk about complex thinking, in my opinion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.2.6  CB   replied to  CB @10.2.5    one week ago
I will seek out Frances Cress Welsing (real soon and get back to you).

JR! I found her! I listened to her! I shall listen to her again. She is. . . interestingly 'bright. 'I am comfortable with her 'relaxed' speaking style. Following the 80/20 rule of life, I can fully agree with 80 (plus) percent of what she uttered in this video:

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing last public speech Atlanta 5/23/2015

There are some things I know about White people as a Black person intimate with multiple races, she may not know or appreciate cross-racial intimacies. I don't know.

All in all. "Folksy"? Good listen.

She speaks of unconscious matters of race in people. I can see that. Now then, this Dr. Khilanani is too aggressive. A far sight farther down on the spectrum than Dr. Welsing, in my opinion.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
Sophomore Participates
11  Baron Creek    2 weeks ago

Setting aside the inflamatory remarks this Psychiatrist made, it was more interesting to see the tone of comments and assumption that she is black. Good grief.... remember ass/u/me. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Baron Creek @11    2 weeks ago

I believe I read that she was the child of Haitian immigrants. I saw her photo and she is not particularly dark-skinned. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
Sophomore Participates
11.1.1  Baron Creek  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 weeks ago

More likely Indian immigrants.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Baron Creek @11.1.1    2 weeks ago
More likely Indian immigrants.

I'm pretty sure it was Haitian, but I'd have to find the article again. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
Sophomore Participates
11.1.3  Baron Creek  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure it was Haitian, but I'd have to find the article again. 

I'm becoming more certain of Indian heritage, given references made in Hindi.

I did find her post from 7 weeks back kind of odd... 

The biggest racists are Liberals and white Feminists. Negative feelings and feelings of hatred are NORMAL.

When feelings of hatred are NEVER emotionally processed and remain UNCONSCIOUS, then we have a problem. Because it will come out in an action. Such as shooting, hurting, harm. Of course, every time this happens, liberals are confused by it, because they have not consciously acknowledged their hatred.

Beginning to feel hatred is a postive step, it means that an unconsious feeling is becoming conscious. It is now less likely to bypass your awareness and come out as an action.

A feeling never hurt anyone. An action will.

Confusing to me, but that happens more and more.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sunshine
Dulay
SteevieGee
Thrawn 31
CB
Gordy327
JBB


44 visitors