Virginia Tech's Professor of Hate

Because if that wasn't your point (a point that has no basis in fact as far as I can tell), I don't see what the point of starting the thread was.

Originally posted by Dupek Chakra:
You said it, not me.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Are you implying that the killer read the professor's writings and was then helplessly compelled to go out and kill?

Originally posted by Dupek Chakra:
Kosmo fancies himself as the scissor man, putting end to evil-doers plans.

Why are VT professors allowed to write:

"stab-a-Jew…" ???

Isn't this the least bit relevant to the facts of this massacre?

"A white face goes with a white mind. Occasionally a black face goes with a white mind. Very seldom a white face will have a black mind."
-Who could she be refering to? Dave Chappelle? :D

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Because if that wasn't your point (a point that has no basis in fact as far as I can tell), I don't see what the point of starting the thread was.

So you are in opposition to the pertinent fact that Chosen Hui attended her class? You look at 2+2 and you see three?


—


If you quote something inflammatory here you are a troll.

If you write something inflammatory at Virginia Tech you are a professor.

Now do you see the difference?

How do you know that Hui even read any of her writings? Do professors typically use their own writings as course material? Has someone claimed she used this material in her classroom? I never read any of the writings of my professors. And even if any of my professors did write inflammatory nonsense, they certainly wouldn't have made influenced me to the point where'd I'd go out and shoot up 30+ people.

Originally posted by Dupek Chakra:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Because if that wasn't your point (a point that has no basis in fact as far as I can tell), I don't see what the point of starting the thread was.

So you are in opposition to the pertinent fact that Chosen Hui attended her class? You look at 2+2 and you see three?


—


If you quote something inflammatory here you are a troll.

If you write something inflammatory at Virginia Tech you are a professor.

Now do you see the difference?

Well Dupek old chap….you win again. You started a rather interesting discussion.

Nice one my friend, I bow before the master! ;)

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
How do you know that Hui even read any of her writings?

Just the fact that he was in her class is important.

Heck, after Columbine Michael Moore called Littleton, CO a "city of death" because the Lockheed missile factory was located there too. Coincidence..?

The point of the article is not that this professor's writings influenced Cho. The point is that Cho's own writings should have been a clear sign that he was disturbed, and that this was mostly overlooked because the professor reading those writings is somewhat disturbed herself. That's the only reason the article discusses the professor's writings at all, to show that, based on her own work, she may not have really seen anything wrong with Cho's at all. Whether that's true or not, I can't say, but that's what the article is saying, not that Cho snapped because he read his professor's work.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I never read any of the writings of my professors. And even if any of my professors did write inflammatory nonsense, they certainly wouldn't have made influenced me to the point where'd I'd go out and shoot up 30+ people.

But you're a normal, mentally balanced person (I assume). Cho obviously was not. There's no telling what can make someone like that snap and do something like what he did.

Originally posted by Reod Dai:
The point of the article is not that this professor's writings influenced Cho. The point is that Cho's own writings should have been a clear sign that he was disturbed, and that this was mostly overlooked because the professor reading those writings is somewhat disturbed herself. That's the only reason the article discusses the professor's writings at all, to show that, based on her own work, she may not have really seen anything wrong with Cho's at all. Whether that's true or not, I can't say, but that's what the article is saying, not that Cho snapped because he read his professor's work.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I never read any of the writings of my professors. And even if any of my professors did write inflammatory nonsense, they certainly wouldn't have made influenced me to the point where'd I'd go out and shoot up 30+ people.

But you're a normal, mentally balanced person (I assume). Cho obviously was not. There's no telling what can make someone like that snap and do something like what he did.

Is Reod Dai the only one here who can put two and two together? Perhaps yes.

Wait a minute. There are a whole lot of factors here to consider. It's super easy to extract tiny little pieces of things and jump to full out assumptions of what happened or should have happened. Not to say that everyone doesn't have a full right to their own ideas and opinions and rights to say as much no matter how much one might disagree.

First off, our Constitution and Bill of Rights supposedly guarantees us the freedom of speech which includes freedom in written works. If my understanding is correct, this was some sort of creative writing class which is designed to offer instruction on how to write creatively. That's rather simple. The writer picks a topic; maybe instructor selected to suit an objective; and he then proceeds with his written project. If he was that bad, than it was up to the instructor to try to intervene with helping him improve his writing. If all attempts fail, then the guy should receive a failing grade. Subject matter and quality are two completely different issues.

Same, essentially, with the best of writers. Maybe Cho sucked at what he did but to our knowledge, he wasn't slandering anyone or breaking any kinds of laws via his written word. Neither Cho's nor his instructor's writings seem to suit my choice of reading material either but I will defend both's right to freedom of speech. I just won't bother to read their crap. Rather simple. If you want to go off on his or his instructor's subject matter, then you may as well throw in authors like Stephen King or Thomas Harris. Better yet, why not bring to life Farhenheit 451? It is generally understood that the instructor's intentions were to influence the students' writings, not their actions. Give me more proof in other forms to prove otherwise.

Another very important issue here is that there are many laws protecting one's rights to privacy though they are dwindling at an ever so rapid pace in this Police State mentality. From my understanding, Cho had a history of psychiatric problems. There are all kinds of HEPA(? - may have the letters wrong) laws, for your own personal protections, you better be glad are in place or you won't get some job or whatever because your genetic makeup predisposes you to cancer, or you are denied membership to some organization because they found you took some SSRI for a period of time while you were trying to deal with that messy divorce. Many of you are probably laughing right now but you better take this seriously because things like this are already happening in a few places! If you've read 1984, than you have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Oh, wait! By some people's thinking, Orwell should not have been allowed to publish that book. He should have been stopped because he was a crazy freethinker!

With that said, if and when a teacher/instructor notices something that indicates possible abuse or a potentially harmful situation, they are required by law to report such activity. With that said, this instructor had to make a judgement call as to whether this was (cheesey) artistic expression or indicative of something else. Keep in mind, we only know what has been released via the media, the odd personal connection or the rumor mill. For all we know, they may very well have made that report. Also, we don't know what the general assignments were for this class. He may have very well been following the guidelines.

Now, as a teacher myself, having many, many times come across situations of abuse or other noted concerns, I know full well how often nothing ever comes of such reports. Talk to any teacher in America or even many other countries these days. We are all loaded with these stories. We jump through all the hoops to document and report our observations only for the offices and powers that be to determine there is nothing they can or choose do. From there, rarely is there anything else the teacher can do. Back to privacy concerns, it must stay in house and personal issues not told to the public. Same exact kinds of laws when I worked in a nursing home though I've found the schools to be much worse regarding this matter.

Then we have the new fangled philosphy of 'the least restrictive environment' which reigns supreme in our society today. One could, and many probably have already done so, write a book on this alone. Basically, it involves the almost complete deinstitutionalization of everything. One of the very same reasons we have so many homeless. Getting right to the point, this theory and practice would have Cho as a (by their ideals) fully functioning member of society working on his degree and then off working full time somewhere. From what we know, prior to that fatefull day, he had committed no crimes and he hadn't been deemed dangerous enough to remove from society. They don't lock people up (yet) for bad writing or for their choice of subject matter. Same for his instructor and her choice of writing material regardless of what any of us think of it.

If you still don't get this, than don't bitch if Homeland Security gives you the extra search because you chose to take along a copy of In Cold Blood with you to pass the time during your flight out to some festival.

(Sorry about the length. Too many important issues involved.)

Btw, I once had to read an intructor written book for a class and it was fairly good and fit right in with our other reading material. It was for a class at Hopkins called something like Revolutions & Culture and the instructor was deeply involved with world politics outside of the classroom. In fact, so much so, one class had to be cancelled because the US government sent her over to Russia to help with some election. So, it happens and can be well placed.

Well put.

Why didn't the SWAT team charge the campus when the first shots were fired at the main crime scene? They already knew about the prior murders that occurred 90 minutes before. They knew a deranged killer was running loose. Isn't that what SWAT teams are for?

Maybe they didn't want to violate anyone's rights..? Maybe they were afraid of lawsuits? Yeah that's the ticket! It's better to enter the fray after-the-fact. Not only do dead men tell no tales, but they don't testify in lawsuits either.

Why does everyone quote the Constitution and Bill of Rights as if it's some sort of bible to live our lives by? Do you follow all the laws, just because they are laws?

How did they know there was a "deranged killer" on the loose? Do you send out a SWAT team for every murder that happens in the world? Can you assume that anyone who kills two people anywhere is going to follow it up with 30 more?

Originally posted by Dupek Chakra:
Well put.

Why didn't the SWAT team charge the campus when the first shots were fired at the main crime scene? They already knew about the prior murders that occurred 90 minutes before. They knew a deranged killer was running loose. Isn't that what SWAT teams are for?

Maybe they didn't want to violate anyone's rights..? Maybe they were afraid of lawsuits? Yeah that's the ticket! It's better to enter the fray after-the-fact. Not only do dead men tell no tales, but they don't testify in lawsuits either.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why does everyone quote the Constitution and Bill of Rights as if it's some sort of bible to live our lives by? Do you follow all the laws, just because they are laws?

Rhett, sometimes you scare me. You really scare me!

You, as outspoken as you are, should especially be concerned with our rights!

The point is that Cho's own writings should have been a clear sign that he was disturbed, and that this was mostly overlooked because the professor reading those writings is somewhat disturbed herself. That's the only reason the article discusses the professor's writings at all, to show that, based on her own work, she may not have really seen anything wrong with Cho's at all

I'm not entering the initial debate here but I do want to respond to this comment.

From what I have read in news articles on the situation, not only WAS Giovanni disturbed by Cho's writing, but she went to the English department chairperson and asked that he be removed from her class.

The chairperson started tutoring him independently and BOTH teachers (I am pretty sure both, but definitely the chairperson) went to the administration to express their concerns about his mental state and whether he was a danger to the community.

They were told that as long as he had not actually threatened anyone, there was nothing they could do about it.

A perfect case in point of both the teacher and the school observing a potential serious problem and following through on what they are, in fact, required to do, only to be met with a dead end. Sadly, this one was much more deadly than many others.

Still, the coincidence of 'hate prose/poetry' at VT, by both profs & students, is too great to ignore.

Originally posted by hijinksandsue:

The point is that Cho's own writings should have been a clear sign that he was disturbed, and that this was mostly overlooked because the professor reading those writings is somewhat disturbed herself. That's the only reason the article discusses the professor's writings at all, to show that, based on her own work, she may not have really seen anything wrong with Cho's at all

I'm not entering the initial debate here but I do want to respond to this comment.

From what I have read in news articles on the situation, not only WAS Giovanni disturbed by Cho's writing, but she went to the English department chairperson and asked that he be removed from her class.

The chairperson started tutoring him independently and BOTH teachers (I am pretty sure both, but definitely the chairperson) went to the administration to express their concerns about his mental state and whether he was a danger to the community.

They were told that as long as he had not actually threatened anyone, there was nothing they could do about it.

jESUS FUCKING cHRIST. tHE cONSTITUTION is a 250 year old piece of paper written by a bunch of fairies walking around in dresses and powdered wigs.

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why does everyone quote the Constitution and Bill of Rights as if it's some sort of bible to live our lives by? Do you follow all the laws, just because they are laws?

Rhett, sometimes you scare me. You really scare me!

You, as outspoken as you are, should especially be concerned with our rights!

That very same Constitution protects your rights to call them 'fairies'.

Now, when the overly PC crowd and homosexually sensitive come on here to attact you, I may not bother to chime in to take up for your Constitutionally given rights of free speech since I now know that you have no true understanding and respect towards it. Instead, I'll just sit back and delight in them picking you to pieces for your rude homophobic comment.

just so everyone knows. "all men are created equal" was written by a slave owner.

and your country was started by a bunch of dudes who wanted to overthrow the government they were living under so they could be rich and powerful.

or is that not the way they teach it in american schools?

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Instead, I'll just sit back and delight in them picking you to pieces for your rude homophobic comment.

i dont believe Rhett is homophobic.

Please go back to Canada.