Dumbass
I don’t think she should graduate from college until she passes a basic English literacy test. She read a simple sentence in her “expensive” textbook and misinterpreted it.
Kelbie Murphy, a senior at the university, paid roughly $100 for an assigned textbook in her International Public Relations course. In Chapter 8, the opening passage reads: “An internet search produces the following modifier for identity: corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand, and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group).”
“The way it was worded, it listed several marginalized groups, but then only called Christians to be White supremacists,” Murphy told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview. “But the scariest thing is that the book was written in 2007.”
That’s not a particularly expensive textbook.
The fact that “identity” when modified by “Christian” refers to a racist, white supremacist organization outraged her because she couldn’t comprehend that “Christian identity” is a narrow subset of Christian thought, and thought it was maligning all of the Christian faith (although maybe it was an accurate misreading, that wasn’t what the textbook was saying). She got lots of views on TikTok, and even got highlighted on Fox News, two places where ignorance prospers.
Dan McClellan dismantles Murphy’s whole argument.
The University of North Georgia should be ashamed if they cave in to her lies.
So Kelbie thinks the book is saying (among other things) that black Christians are white supremacists. She should change her first name to Karen.
Lies, Christians, FOX and social media ride the same train of intentional ignorance. Way too many people believe what these entities are selling. Trump, using FOX, Christianity and social media has got the MAGA base to believe anything he says is the truth, screw accuracy.
I didn’t know that “Christian Identity” was a specific white supremacist group descended from British Israelism either. I suppose if you don’t know that then the wording does seem like it’s calling all Christians white supremacists.
A faux pas that a public relations textbook should have flagged and corrected. Maybe it was an example of terrible PR?
She could just have looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
@3 Your response suggests the text book is beyond your reading level. If you don’t understand that the whole point of the sentence is to set up the idea that specific pairings of a variety of words followed by “identity” creates very different meanings, then you don’t know how to read the sentence.
yeah, Zuck, blah blah, but here’s a reel I just saw an hour ago on this very person and her blatant lies to Fox News (and the proof that she was lying, based on her earlier videos).
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2260662034375813
oh, hadn’t scrolled far enough past the photo. the reel is the same video as what is shared here from YouTube (granted, another evil empire, but there we are)…just in portrait aspect ratio.
Perhaps even dumber: She sees the list “corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand” and refers to it as a list of “marginalized groups.” Did her focus immediately go to “Christian,” ignoring the context?
Meanwhile the New York Young Republicans has been dissolved due to racism, antisemiticism, and is dead and gone. Who’s next?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/17/new-york-young-republicans-suspended/
From my quick look-up, it appears that the University of North Georgia, or at least its primary campus, exists within that state’s 14th Congressional District – the one now represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Any questions?
I got a feeling she’s not a history major.
“Oh… My… GAWD! My Medieval Europe professor, like, just said, like, that Christian did all these, like, terrible things! This, like, can’t be, like, true! I’m going to, like, demand to,like, see the Dean’s manager for this, like, woke indoctrination… like.”
I notice in her Tik-Tok vids she’s using the Fundie Baby Voice the rest of the world was introduced to by Sen. Katie Britt in her SOTU rebuttal. Which suggests to me that the chances are not zero that Ms. Murphy is a White Christian Nationalist who got triggered at thinking she was being called out by her textbook.
Agreed. I have been a bit apprehensive as my text is about $200 (and has been for a while) but a colleague teaching a related class said hers was $400 this year. I think I feel better now. (Or worse, given that it’s likely a lot of the students I teach need to get both.)
Now when I went through my undergrad, I had one text that was $100 – and because of the time that was, it was a VERY expensive text. Times change, inflation governs.(Text book sucked.)
Ridana, that’s one plausible explanation.
I myself took a look and estimate that the three most plausible explanations are:
an (original) inability to parse the compound noun: 10%;
motivated misreading: 40% [that’s yours];
performative misreading for social media traction: 50%
The uni made it quite clear, and she still does not get it, so…
cf. https://accesswdun.com/news/ung-issues-statement-after-student-raises-concerns-over-textbook
Pierce R. Butler @10
Might she be not very distantly related to MTG?
@5 bcw bcw
???
Could you say that over in plain English? Use small words for my small brain, <140 chars thanks!
@ ^ the dishonest trump enabling troll beholder : Well, you said it! I’m gunna have to quote you on that one. Explains a bit. Your brain really must be small indeed to think a vote for anyone other than Kamala Harris wasn’t a vote for Trump and that arguing against Kamala Harris as you and the rest of the Pu(t)ri(di)ty Disunity mob did wouldn’t help inflict Trump as POTUS on the rest of the planet again. Especially after Stein did the same shit in 2016 with the same results and after you were told repeatedly exactly what you were doing and what it would result in.
She ostensibly misparsed the sentence’s structure and failed to distinguish between the noun “identity” and its modifiers (“corporate identity,” “sexual identity,” “digital identity,” “Christian identity” etc. “Christian identity,” which is a known extremist movement, is the compound noun.
The specific error is treating “Christian” as a standalone noun rather than a compound modifier of “identity.”
So, beholder, synthesise that with my #14 and its own explanation.
(You’re now doing the same thing)
I could see getting confused over that paragraph if one thinks in terms of identifying as a Christian and being ignorant of the Christian Identity movement, who kinda engaged in identity theft with that self-ascribed label. The textbook writers might have attempted more clarity with an aside saying that Christian Identity is NOT the same as identifying as a Christian. But this person seems to be deliberately not getting the point at around 8:49 when instead of the confusion over Christian identity she’s engaging in wordplay about Christianity as an identity and the book calling that white supremacist. Leans heavy on cancellation early in the video so yeah. Not a very good faith effort.
I have my own sensitivities about identity politics going in an opposite direction. All those IDW center right atheists who crowed on about identity politics of the Left failed to recognize atheism, the church-state sort highlighted by Hemant Mehta, is an identity politics. But Atheist Identity isn’t coopted as a white supremacist movement.
To be charitable one could have a Christian identity without being Christian Identity. But when the intent of the book is pointed out let it go. OTOH when a new edition is published maybe clarify a bit more so as not to invite such unintended effects.
I’m done pretzeling myself for now…
@8. catballou : Perhaps even dumber: She sees the list “corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand” and refers to it as a list of “marginalized groups.” Did her focus immediately go to “Christian,” ignoring the context?
Yes, I reckon it did.
Kelbie Murphy’s initial misunderstanding is one thing – and a bit of basic thought like “Hang on this can’t be right and what its actually saying can it? followed by closer rereading and thought would show that. The problem is she then got so worked up she didn’t accept the obvious reality that the textbook wasn’t saying all Christians are White Supremacists and rejected that reality and substituted her own lying about what the overpriced textbook itself actually said and continually repeating those lies despite them being demonstrably wrong. That’s what’s not excusable or acceptable here.
@12, Ridana :
That seems highly likely to me as well especially given what a big deal she’s made of it. If was a simple Oh Idsidn’t know that Christian identity White Supremacism was a thing ignoance then having her ignorance corrected the response could easily be Oh what a lot of awful deceitful horrid people those White Supremacists are! How dare they misrepresent & hijack Christianity like that and abuse the term for their really ugly purposes’ Instead she’s gone the other way in “How dare they call ME a White Supremacist which, ofc, the text did NOT actually do. Why so defensive, hmm.. ? Suss as.
You would need to get more evidence ofc – look at Kelbie Murphy’s comments and things she’s said and focused on beyond just this one issue and other indicators and tells to confirm that but I have a strong suspicion that Ridana is correct here.
My suggested modification so as not to be misunderstood:
I’d add an endnote that goes on to distinguish between Christian Identity as a white supremacist movement and people who identify as Christians. Textbooks can be kinda crappy when it comes to wording stuff. That 99.99% of people reading this passage didn’t lose their shit could indicate most students aren’t engaging in close reading for imagined offense or even paying any attention after beer pong the previous night.
Hemidactylus, thing is, that’s a tertiary-level textbook, and by that point it’s already Chapter 8.
You can’t judge it absent the context and preceeding and succeeding discussion; this is orthogonal to her refusal to understand it, and the media exposure it yields.
And, hey, as per my #4, She could just have looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
John Morales @23
So you mean a textbook for…college students? Sure those are sacred cows with no throwaway paragraphs or poorly worded passages. In my experience it varied how much a professor even taught to a required (why?) text or their lectures.
I don’t think she should graduate from college until she passes a basic English literacy test.
“An internet search produces the following modifier for identity: corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand, and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group).”
“The way it was worded, it listed several marginalized groups, but then only called Christians to be White supremacists,”
If one cannot parse a sentence, if one cannot see it’s akin to the distributive property, then perhaps PZ’s OP has merit.
I put it to you that it is in no sense confusing or ambiguous, and that the uni is bending over backwards to be nice in that link, because it’s damn obvious it’s just another turn of the ‘outrage’ screw, and so this damping.
But, seriously! Do you reckon it can be parsed in any other way?
And, you know, “Kelbie Murphy, a senior at the university, paid roughly $100 for an assigned textbook in her International Public Relations course.”
(The irony drips)
[oops, first para got evaporated. but I think what remains suffices — that is for you, Hemidactylus.
You know my comments are bespoke]
I think it’s very telling how none of that energy and outrage is directed at the hate group itself that is utilizing the name “Christian identity”. They don’t seem to care too much that Christo-centric hate groups are (supposedly) misleading people about what it means to be a Christian by using that modifier. They claim to not be aware of such groups, yet, now that they are, where’s the outrage towards them for tarnishing their Christian brand? Their victim mentality has such a hair trigger that this consideration doesn’t even show up on their radar. How very, very telling.
John Morales @2
So your comments are “made for a particular customer or user” per the New Oxford American Dictionary?
The word “identity” is polysemic in the passage and there’s enough ambiguity to invite trouble. Christian Identity may have been implicit, but since identity started off as lower case, one might want to be explicit with the upper case in the case of Christian Identity so it is not confused for one having an identity that is Christian.
@27 Lauren Walker
This has been a thing for a decade or two. Calling someone ‘racist’ is w-a-a-a-ay worse than being a racist, according to their posturing.
Wikipedia heroes:
Wikipedia Volunteers Avert Tragedy by Taking Down Gunman at Conference
Also has the field of international public relations not changed enough since 2007 to warrant using a newer text or publishing a new edition? I side eye the field of PR given its penchant for BS and early grounding in Lippmann and Edward “Torches of Freedom” Bernays. PR is heavily linked in my mind to propaganda and damage control.
Do biology professors still use texts from 2007?
I suspect she already has signed her contract with Fox News, and we’ll begin immediately after graduating.
Maybe a case study in “international public relations” gone wild?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_%26_Knowlton#Controversies
IMHO I think she either deliberately misread that or her reading skills are terribly lacking .
Eh, the wording really could be better, e.g. by quotating “identity”. I had to read it twice to understand it properly, and it probably helps that I’d heard of Christian Identity. But then, I’m willing to re-read for comprehension, before rushing off to cry “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”
About that: since when are “corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand” “marginalized groups”? (And since when is “Christian” a marginalized group?)
Also: $100 is on the low end for textbooks these days, particularly in somewhat specialized areas. That’s perhaps a scandal all by itself….
McClellan did a piece a year ago about on the religion of whiteness: On the “religion of whiteness”. I found it interesting. I’m confident that racism plays a major role in the MAGA movement, particularly among Southern Christians.
stevewatson @35
I don’t think sexual identity or racial identity are themselves marginalized groups. But people can be marginalized based on those two identities. Add in intersectionality.
She, like the textbook writers, was being too vague with that.
Keep trying, Hemidactylus.
“John Morales @2[6]
So your comments are “made for a particular customer or user” per the New Oxford American Dictionary?”
Yes. Each one is tailored to its recipient.
(Been saying that here since around 2006, you’ve been reading me for a chunk of that interval)
“The word “identity” is polysemic in the passage and there’s enough ambiguity to invite trouble”
Bullshit. I keep telling you it can only be parsed one way.
There is no one word. All are compound terms. That’s the point!
From my @18, (with the terminating parenthesis fixed):
She ostensibly misparsed the sentence’s structure and failed to distinguish between the noun “identity” and its modifiers (“corporate identity,” “sexual identity,” “digital identity,” “Christian identity” etc.)
Right? Distributive.
They are not [corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand, and even Christian], but rather [“corporate identity,” “sexual identity,” “digital identity,” “Christian identity” etc.]
That’s what it says!
Me, I think it’s a little joke [and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group)] as it shows it to be an outlier.
That is, ‘identity’ is applied to many things that are not.
(Like ‘community’)
Several people have said the text was not clear, especially if one was unfamiliar with the group Christian Identity. I agree it was not clear but not that what was said about her applies to me. But most posters prefer to not see it that way and to attack the young woman. Maybe deservedly so. But again I am impressed by the need for people here to judge others harshly and to not give them the benefit of the doubt. Great fun piling on the racists and stupid people. I agree with that but not in this case.
“But again I am impressed by the need for people here to judge others harshly and to not give them the benefit of the doubt.”
You, of course, are not judging others here harshly and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
“Great fun piling on the racists and stupid people.”
So she is a racist and stupid person, and thus the great fun being had?
(Harsh!)
John Morales @38
Keep trying what given that you are irremediably convinced you are always the smartest one in the comment section?
Funny that you still fail to distinguish Christian identity against Christian Identity, word chopper that you are. I made such an important distinction explicit and that whooshed right past you again.
Great fun piling on the racists and stupid people.”
So she is a racist and stupid person, and thus the great fun being had?
That was irony. Not saying she was racist and stupid. Others said that.
And obviously the great fun was being had by others .
To misunderstand me. I know you previously disbelieved my claim that I tailor my comments.
Also, your fantasy that you imagine that I am irremediably convinced you are always the smartest one in the comment section is not congruent with reality. Though, these days, it clearly is more apposite than in previous times.
(I get this a lot: people imputing motives and attitudes to me that basically reflect their own fears)
Predictable you believe I am somehow failing, when I’ve been rather clear.
Let me eludicate and elaborate for you:
Sentence is ““An internet search produces the following modifier for identity: corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand, and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group).””.
The main clause contains a subject (“An internet search”), a verb phrase (“produces”), and an object (“the following modifier for identity: corporate, sexual, digital, public, racial, national, brand, and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group).”).
So it refers to the frequent use of those modifiers for ‘identity’ being discoverable via internet search, illustrating its extensive prevalence.
It’s talking about the use of the term, not about Christians.
Now, did you get the weight of “Me, I think it’s a little joke [and even Christian (a U.S.-based white supremacist group)] as it shows it to be an outlier.”? Surely you can see it’s a special/extreme use of the modifier, and that parenthetical is clearly there to specify it does not refer to generic Christian identity, but rather to a specific sociopolitical referent (see my 34).
Ah, yes, the capitalisation that indicates a proper noun instead of a generic noun. Definite, not indefinite.
And yet, it is indeed the case that Christian is a modifier for identity, and this group has selected it as their Identity.
But that was the very point of the parenthetical — it most explicitly refers to the group whose name is a
—
chesapeake: “That was irony. Not saying she was racist and stupid. Others said that.”
Nope. Ctrl-F is your friend. You are attributing your misperception to others, but it is not true.
— “The fact that “identity” when modified by “Christian” refers to a racist” is in the OP, and it is calling the reference racist, not the person. As I normally do. Though, of course, one finds it hard to imagine a non-racist making that claim.
— Reginald above: “Calling someone ‘racist’ is w-a-a-a-ay worse than being a racist, according to their posturing.” is the same — the act, not the person.
The next use is by you.
And nobody has used ‘stupid’ until you.
So, no. Others did not say that.
I’m not sure who said it but I think it applies here.
Gnomic, Walter.
Sure, she violated that aphorism, should it be her to whom you refer.
But others have also done that.
(Have you considered a reflexive application of it? ‘Coz it kinda fits)
@34. brightmoon : “IMHO I think she either deliberately misread that or her reading skills are terribly lacking.”
Suspect its probly both.
@42. chesapeake & others : “So she is a racist and stupid person, and thus the great fun being had?”
Dunno about fun. I do strongly supect that Kelbie Murphy is racist as I noted in my #21. Most people are giving our cultur eand our media to varying degrees.
I do not know enough about Kelbie Murphy to asess her level of intelligence. However, this example of her conduct noted in the OP does not reflect well upon that or her level of honestly either..
@ WhiteHatLurker – 17th October 2025 at 8:39 pm : Seems bloody expensive to me esp given its USA dollars.