Professor trolls with massively inflammatory statement.

They’re not exactly consistent around here.

This article and the comments that followed were COMPLETELY different when it was man building a robot mate.

You can’t seriously ask those questions after our side gets offended at every micro-aggression in existence.

Look again at the nuance in that title, and compare it. One is clearly talking about a subset, the other is blanketing a whole concept, and with it, a race. Whether or not it’s justified, the name is inflammable. The legislature never would have noticed it otherwise.

No, I’m really not. The name “Black History Month” is not flammable.

All the more reason not to draw their attention.

So why purposefully offend them? Pick a name that won’t draw the ire of those writing the checks, and teach what you want anyway?

By the way, part of your problem is acting like your audience has been around for centuries. Just like you, they only know about those years what they’ve been taught.

Not really, no. But then the audience that you need to please isn’t me, but whomever signs the checks.

More like silly bull-headedness.

So they pick a course title that is sure to be inflammatory even if the course itself isn’t, and then the SJWs want to cram it down someone’s throat because “it shouldn’t bother them”?

How about a name that doesn’t seem like inflammatory finger pointing?

How about whites just say, “screw this, I’m not paying for it”? Now if the purposely inflammatory course title is the cause of this, who has really lost?

Shouldn’t be, but is. And known it would be.

No whining.

Irrelevant since nobody here was around then.

Give it a try yourself. You pick an incendiary name, you’ll get flames. Whining about where the flames come from is funny.

Because so many people have seen something made in 1903.

So there would be no issue with the thin-skinned and the “Problem of Blackness”? Of course there would.

The name was picked to “bother”. And so it does.