>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7 XHZy_yBoU Holy shit,

File: terminal reddit.jpg (49KB, 464x464px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 464x464px

>>134675274
>most professors as being SJW brainwashers
wtf I love Ballsack of Mossad now!!!

no wait he is an alt-lite pro-mass immigration cuck still

weird

I mean, despite your shit post, Sargo is STILL cuck, almost like...

your post changed... nothing...

huh.

Huh.

huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

I cant believe he is andrew anglins internet lawyer.

File: cozz.jpg (14KB, 212x212px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 212x212px

>>134675866
Wow, you triggered Drzumpflords are so triggered you cant believe how triggered you are over a one-third black man being a lawyer because you're so triggered about it. I love this. You're so triggered you triggered moron, fuck you shitbaby pissman fuck.

The vast VOCAL majority are.

Right leaning, or firmly center PhDs are usually quiet while their left colleagues are agitating and brainwashing their students.

He's right. On what evidence are you going to argue against that?

>>134675274

Are you retarded or something? English isn't my native language but unless you're somehow severely impaired you couldn't miss how he's only addressing the lunatics and talks about the people in their position in general who should be more careful ... (well no shit Sherlock) but ok.

He's almost giving those assholes advice ...

he refuses to swallow the final red pill, "Hitler was right" pill, to pander o his own sense of moral superiority.

People like sargon and Stefan, convince themselves to be such objective skeptics, that they refuse to marry their thoughts with any political affiliation.

>>134675700
>pro-mass immigration cuck

He is?

>>134675274
This is Sargon's only redeeming quality. He deserves to have his money streams destroyed for what he did with "kekistan," but the the faggot spews truths like this and my rage vanishes. For the moment.

>>134679794
nope

He's generally right in the video. The only thing is he read half a line,"Sure, a professor who calls for the hanging of President Trump should expect blowback," and then assumes they're going to follow that up with a defense saying they don't deserve too much blowback. When actually the author was using that as an example of something you could and should expect blowback on and suggesting that the other examples ("All I want for Christmas is white genocide," etc.) are by comparison reasonable and not deserving of the blowback they receive. He's right in pointing out that actually, no, those other examples are not reasonable, and that further entrenching an us against them mentality between the academic world and general public is an awful move for them strategically. He's just wrong in continuing to act like the author was also an apologist for people calling for the hanging of the president (at least here).