I did share a screen on Nov 30, about how this movement is infiltrated by heavily paid PR puppets. (2/23)
There’s something I need to say. It will be harsh, unpleasant, but truth. Since I’ve already given my heart to you’ll, I owe you this.
It’s my side of the story, which otherwise I would’ve never shared. (1/23)
I did share a screen on Nov 30, about how this movement is infiltrated by heavily paid PR puppets. (2/23)
Dec 14 ‘Oath4SSR’ was a massive success. (3/23)
We again created the ‘Love4SSR’ history, which is still echoing.
On the other side, I started receiving threatening calls... (4/23)
These are the kind of threats— (5/23)
I didn’t back off. Somehow by Nov it stopped.
But a new kind of malicious activity on Twitter started from Dec. (6/23)
I specifically told him that it maybe a targeted harassment... (7/23)
But the threats continued. I normally never react to anything negative, but somehow they started using ‘trigger’ words. (8/23)
It was a big thing for me to write it... (9/23)
Some words trigger a massive emotional trauma for me. I don’t know how few people here, who I’ve seen fighting for SSR since long, knew those trigger words, & put vile comments on the only 3 videos of me I made around ‘Oath4SSR’ protest... (10/23)
Since last night again such triggers are used, maybe to silence me. (11/23)
My only goal is to make sure it never breaks. Also, this is a fight for me too. (12/23)
My this thread is also an answer to those who’re trying to trigger me again, & hoping... (13/23)
Months back I told about how everyone who appeared on Republic are a target.
I didn’t even know @smitaparikh2 at that time. But she used to be hot topic of discussions in those vile WA groups... (14/23)
Then I saw how badly she was hounded on Twitter too. I felt for her, & stood for her.
And my stand remains unchanged. (15/23)
Most here don’t understand the working style & ethics of CBI. Nothing is hidden from them, & culprits will be served justice, no matter how big that person is. (16/23)
After @KanganaTeam clarified on my tweet about YouTubers, there were threats too. But not at the level which are happening since Dec 1.
I will face the triggers, no matter how badly they affect me. (18/23)
He did it. I will not stop sharing this awakening. When I said I love you’ll I mean it. (19/23)
Even after knowing the truth about almost everyone in this movement by now, I’ve never attacked or abused anyone. (20/23)
Sushant, bro, I will always keep your voice alive. Because one day when I meet you, I want to look into your eyes & apologise for not speaking earlier. I could’ve saved you. (21/23)
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
