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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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

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?

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!

She also seems disturbed to me.

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.

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

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

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

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!)

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.

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.

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

Psychopathic? Sounds more like psychotic!

[deleted]

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

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. 

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.

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.)

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. 

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. 

bariweiss.substack

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

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. 

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!

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.

Okay, now I'm interested. Tell.

"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?

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.

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 .

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

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

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. 

agreed  

Melanin is great stuff!

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

[deleted]

[deleted]

Removed for context

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. 

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

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.

what is the topic?

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.

No we don't.

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!

Yes, they do

start at :52 mark

Allowed, directly addresses comment 1  SP

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).

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."

Maybe they won't invite her back to Yale. 

She should be banned from every campus in America.

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. 

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.

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.  karenfranklin

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.'

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

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

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?

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

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

People need to stay on topic.

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

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.

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

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!

She should be.

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?

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.

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. 

bariweiss.substack

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.

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

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?

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.

yalecollege.yale

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.

@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.

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.

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

Thanks, but I already know how to contact them.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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. 

I'm waiting. 

Wait no more.

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

Thanks.

Yeah. Thought so! Exploitation—epic failure.

Exploitation

One victim card played. Check.

Epic failure

On the mark.

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'!

This is boring.

Moving on.

Acknowledged!

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.

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. 

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

We have seen racists do that plenty of times before.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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

More likely Indian immigrants.

More likely Indian immigrants.

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

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.