I open up my textbook to read chapter one and what do I find? Is this the great replacement theory within the first 10 pages? Sure looks like it!
Also bonus advocating for countering “radical islamist groups” by “military and ideological means”
I haven’t gotten a good feel for this prof but we are not off to a good start
Edit: Looks like I pirated the wrong text or something, I found the one my prof wants us to use and it’s very different. Not sure why the two editions are so dramatically different but I’m still keeping an eye out for any fash shit
No, no, spanking someone with the un charter of human rights like they’re a naughty puppy who piddled on the rug and needs a gentle correction is always the correct answer. You might get in trouble, but other people who know this shit is wrong are often emboldened by one firebrand who stands up and starts screaming the truth.
University is expensive as hell, don’t risk you diploma over it, but at the same time; fuck that guy. If you’ve got back-channels you can use to communicate with your classmates under his nose try subverting his lessons by showing with citations how he’s endorsing crimes against humanity and gross violations of international law.
I’ll see about back channels.
I think in general I have a problem where I have only 2 modes: talking to well meaning libs mode, where I hide my power level but use the Socratic method to get people to ask the right questions and radicalize themselves, and talking to NATO apologists mode where I just treat them like they’re actively flying the AC 130 that struck Kunduz Hospital (which, considering how many future MIC engineers I talk with, is not even a disproportionate characterization). I don’t think either is really appropriate if I’m calling him out by myself, but maybe if I have a little support it can be a little better.