News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

"Racist" professor found dead in home

Started by Wahoo Redux, July 24, 2020, 10:20:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wahoo Redux

#120
Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2020, 12:04:02 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 30, 2020, 11:26:07 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 30, 2020, 10:09:22 AM

One could see the extremist opinions of BLM as a counterpoint to the extremist beliefs of the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world, not to mention the Aryan Cowboys who try to incite race riots during peaceful protests...and to yourself, my friend. You've got very lopsided, strident views.  I've got some insight into your character, I think, and if the universe were reversed, I wonder how balanced you would be about race and stereotypes if you and I were in historically oppressed minorities.

Assuming this is directed at me, I'm curious what "strident" views I've expressed. And what insight that has given into my character.

No I believe our friend was addressing me.
Wahoo -- well, OK; obvious to me, you're still trying to win the argument. I think there are Black Americans who have better answers than the BLM crew, for example Glenn Loury, John McWhorter.
Re: my character. Thanks for your candor. I will give it some thought. Cheers.

Not trying to "win" anything. 

Sure, there may be people who have better answers than BLM, but it seems to me BLM is a sectarian response to an intemperate zeitgeist anyway, a hardcore reaction because so little seems to change.  What do we expect to have happen when we are always screaming at each other!? 

I am all for Mike Adams expressing his opinion outside work, no matter how bassawkward they are.  And the courts agreed (although if one wants an encyclopedia example of a Pyrrhic victory, he's it).  But such rhetoric does absolutely no good.  Everything Mike Adams stood for became more obdurate and everything Mike Adams stood against got stronger with every column he wrote.  His suicide made everything worse in both regards.

BLM has a valid point of view, much of which is worthy, even if it sometimes veers into zealotry----and that is all I am trying to get at.  There is no reason to denigrate a murder victim, even if he was not about to win any civic awards.  That does nothing to alter the issues we face and, frankly, it makes you sound bad.

I have every reason to believe your character is excellent.  Your expression is simply harsh for someone with an excellent character.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

marshwiggle

#121
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 30, 2020, 12:23:37 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2020, 12:04:02 PM

No I believe our friend was addressing me.
Wahoo -- well, OK; obvious to me, you're still trying to win the argument. I think there are Black Americans who have better answers than the BLM crew, for example Glenn Loury, John McWhorter.
Re: my character. Thanks for your candor. I will give it some thought. Cheers.


BLM has a valid point of view, much of which is worthy, even if it sometimes veers into zealotry----

And that is why many people cannot support it. It's hard to see how the riots are going to contribute to any useful progress. (Peaceful protests indeed may, but violence and property damage won't.)

Quote

and that is all I am trying to get at.  There is no reason to denigrate a murder victim, even if he was not about to win any civic awards.  That does nothing to alter the issues we face and, frankly, it makes you sound bad.

I have every reason to believe your character is excellent.  Your expression is simply harsh for someone with an excellent character.

I can't recall Mahagonny saying anything in this conversation that I would consider "harsh". Pointing out facts about George Floyd's criminal history merely illustrated that, had he not been murdered, his interaction with the police would have been entirely unremarkable. And he wouldn't have wound up on T-shirts.

To add to Mahagonny's commentators, I'd include Coleman Hughes and Ayishat Akanbi.

It takes so little to be above average.

kaysixteen

Ok, let's try this another way. 

Principal X: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, should not be held to the same academic standards we hold white students to."

Professor Y: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, probably are only in my university owing to illicit affirmative action preferences, and therefore I can treat them with disdain and disrespect."

Public bureaucrat Z: "I believe homosexuals are wicked sinners bound for hell-- therefore I shall not treat them with respect and quick service courtesy."

Now imagine that these public officials posted these remarks, under their own names (so there'd be no way for them to deny that they themselves had indeed said these things) on social media.   Anyone want to say that any of these three folks should retain their public positions, ostensibly  in the name of 'freedom of speech', or some other such grounds?

research_prof

Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 06:40:45 PM
Ok, let's try this another way. 

Principal X: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, should not be held to the same academic standards we hold white students to."

Professor Y: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, probably are only in my university owing to illicit affirmative action preferences, and therefore I can treat them with disdain and disrespect."

Public bureaucrat Z: "I believe homosexuals are wicked sinners bound for hell-- therefore I shall not treat them with respect and quick service courtesy."

Now imagine that these public officials posted these remarks, under their own names (so there'd be no way for them to deny that they themselves had indeed said these things) on social media.   Anyone want to say that any of these three folks should retain their public positions, ostensibly  in the name of 'freedom of speech', or some other such grounds?

That is definitely too much and absolutely NOT acceptable...

But how about that?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dean-of-massachusetts-nursing-school-fired-after-saying-everyones-life-matters

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: research_prof on July 30, 2020, 06:59:25 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 06:40:45 PM
Ok, let's try this another way. 

Principal X: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, should not be held to the same academic standards we hold white students to."

Professor Y: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, probably are only in my university owing to illicit affirmative action preferences, and therefore I can treat them with disdain and disrespect."

Public bureaucrat Z: "I believe homosexuals are wicked sinners bound for hell-- therefore I shall not treat them with respect and quick service courtesy."

Now imagine that these public officials posted these remarks, under their own names (so there'd be no way for them to deny that they themselves had indeed said these things) on social media.   Anyone want to say that any of these three folks should retain their public positions, ostensibly  in the name of 'freedom of speech', or some other such grounds?

That is definitely too much and absolutely NOT acceptable...

But how about that?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dean-of-massachusetts-nursing-school-fired-after-saying-everyones-life-matters

Ya'know Kay, I have to respectfully disagree.  The reductio ad absurdum has its place but does not prove anything.

If the teachers and administrators say these horrendous things above in their private lives and yet preform their professional duties to the standards we expect then they should be free to say these idiotic things if they want. 

If Public Bureaucrat Z can be shone to treat homosexuals differently on the job, that is something completely different and Z should be fired. 

Likewise, if the other alphabet miscreants act on their beliefs professionally then they should be fired or prosecuted, depending.

There are some reasons:

1.  Freedom is dangerous. Our freedom is dangerous and offensive to many people.  There are plenty who would act on just exactly the sentiments your hypotheticals express above.  These people would silence you and me if they could.  In fact, if people were not capable of speaking up, no matter how unpopular their views, most of the things in your hypotheticals would still be institutional norms.  You can only use those viewpoints as reductio ad absurdum because people had the freedom to speak out against them.

2.   What I've posted before: Do you want to have institutions outside the home telling us what to say and think?  Someone earlier posted the legal distinctions of speech for public figures----and this too I would be against.

3.  If X, Y, and Z say these things they, like Mike Adams, will open themselves up to the vigilante world of hate that is also part of free speech and far more effective.  Adams won his lawsuit against his school.  Limiting his speech legally completely failed.  What brought him down is the freedom of speech that other people used.  Let X, Y, and Z start the fight; let them face the hate they bring upon themselves.

4.  But more than any of these other things, the biggest reason to allow free speech for everyone is research_profs' example above.  Limiting some public a**hat from saying "I believe homosexuals are wicked sinners bound for hell" already puts us on the slippery slope and it is not far to go before we are firing people for saying " I despair for our future as a nation if we do not stand up against violence against anyone. BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS."  You see this problem, right?  You begin limiting people's opinions and you will end up with thought police.  You and I are in danger now.

We cannot stop people from thinking and saying bad things.  Just can't.  You try to stuff them down and you just drive them to FOX news, Breitbart, and the Washington Examiner, which thrives on these headlines.

Where do you think Trump comes in?
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

mahagonny

Quote from: research_prof on July 30, 2020, 06:59:25 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 06:40:45 PM
Ok, let's try this another way. 

Principal X: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, should not be held to the same academic standards we hold white students to."

Professor Y: "I believe that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and as such, probably are only in my university owing to illicit affirmative action preferences, and therefore I can treat them with disdain and disrespect."

Public bureaucrat Z: "I believe homosexuals are wicked sinners bound for hell-- therefore I shall not treat them with respect and quick service courtesy."

Now imagine that these public officials posted these remarks, under their own names (so there'd be no way for them to deny that they themselves had indeed said these things) on social media.   Anyone want to say that any of these three folks should retain their public positions, ostensibly  in the name of 'freedom of speech', or some other such grounds?

That is definitely too much and absolutely NOT acceptable...

But how about that?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dean-of-massachusetts-nursing-school-fired-after-saying-everyones-life-matters

Well, that's one thing. But as explained in the link I posted upthread, all white people are racist. So the crime is not racism. It's being white.
Acts 3:19
"Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out"

https://www.startribune.com/counterpoint-i-am-a-racist-so-is-katherine-kersten/571937132/

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," - Ephesians 2:8

Antiracism is a religion. Confess, and hope they don't kick you out.

research_prof

#126
<ignore>

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: research_prof on July 30, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Let me take that one step further and twist it even more and please try to take it into account regardless of political views:

https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/rutgers-prof-stands-by-her-tweets-blaming-trump-supporters-for-coronavirus-deaths.html

Is not that simply hateful against a certain group of (good or bad or smart or stupid) people? I did not see Rutgers taking any action against this professor.

Stupid, awful, mean-spirited person.  She makes all of us academics look insensitive and superior----exactly what the Trump-camp wants.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Biden loses voters here.

And yes, it certainly seems like a double-standard.

But if Rutgers does nothing they have done the right thing.  Cooper will regret how she said it.

What's too bad is that she has a good point to make.  She just blew it because of our argument culture.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

research_prof

#128
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 30, 2020, 08:22:27 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 30, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Let me take that one step further and twist it even more and please try to take it into account regardless of political views:

https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/rutgers-prof-stands-by-her-tweets-blaming-trump-supporters-for-coronavirus-deaths.html

Is not that simply hateful against a certain group of (good or bad or smart or stupid) people? I did not see Rutgers taking any action against this professor.

Stupid, awful, mean-spirited person.  She makes all of us academics look insensitive and superior----exactly what the Trump-camp wants.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Biden loses voters here.

And yes, it certainly seems like a double-standard.

But if Rutgers does nothing they have done the right thing.  Cooper will regret how she said it.

What's too bad is that she has a good point to make.  She just blew it because of our argument culture.

Again.. By no means I am weighing in in any of the cases I mentioned. I am just trying to present facts. In my humble opinion, the facts show (as I mentioned before) that it is the best not to have an opinion nowadays (or if you have one, just keep it to yourself). The reason is that an opinion expressed publicly can get you in trouble one way or the other.

As I said before: I have been in situations that could have made headlines if I had reacted (as probably any other human being would have done when they get seriously offended to the point of humiliation). The thing that has saved me, and I strongly believe that, is not expressing my opinion. Looking back, I am not regretting it, since this for sure saved my career and probably my life as a whole.

Wahoo Redux

Key, what research_prof is saying is what I am talking about when I say we are on a slippery slope of policing what people say and think.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

kaysixteen

I get that we want to avoid slippery slopes and reductiones ad absurda, but we have to take people at their word, that they are prejudiced against people and would not treat them appropriately, and then act accordingly.   This is really little different from voir dire in a murder trial: "Juror candidate X, you said on your blog last week that you 'hate n*ggers', and my client is black.   You are rejected from jury service."

mahagonny

"Conservatives do not care about Black people, she tweeted. "My most cynical negative read of the white supremacists among them is that they welcome this massive winnowing of Black folks in order to slow demographic shifts and shore up political power," she wrote."    _   Cooper

...forgetting that if conservatives had their way there would be no legal abortion, therefore more black Americans.

QuoteWhat's too bad is that she has a good point to make.  She just blew it because of our argument culture.

What?
-

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: kaysixteen on July 30, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
I get that we want to avoid slippery slopes and reductiones ad absurda, but we have to take people at their word, that they are prejudiced against people and would not treat them appropriately, and then act accordingly.   This is really little different from voir dire in a murder trial: "Juror candidate X, you said on your blog last week that you 'hate n*ggers', and my client is black.   You are rejected from jury service."

Again, I have to disagree, mainly because we have apples and oranges here.  You make a good point, but you are not removing someone from a livelihood, you are judging how that person might adjudicate a trial based on your clients' best interests.  There's a difference there.  Jury selection is closer to a job interview than removing someone from employment. 

In the case of X, Y, & Z, and the nursing school dean (and even your jury selection) you are punishing people before they actually do anything.  You are punishing them for 'incorrect ideas.'  Ethically problematic.  Orwellian, in fact.

And my objections are not primarily ethical, they are practical.  If you give people the ability to police what other people say they will abuse the ability----research_profs' nursing dean and research-prof hu-self are examples.  People have a hard time avoiding zealotry in these situations.  We are seeing that.

There is no good answer to this problem, BTW.  It is a conundrum. 
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2020, 09:18:07 PM
"Conservatives do not care about Black people, she tweeted. "My most cynical negative read of the white supremacists among them is that they welcome this massive winnowing of Black folks in order to slow demographic shifts and shore up political power," she wrote."    _   Cooper

...forgetting that if conservatives had their way there would be no legal abortion, therefore more black Americans.

QuoteWhat's too bad is that she has a good point to make.  She just blew it because of our argument culture.

What?
-

Are you confusing articles there?  I was referring to the professor who insulted the Trump voters for not wearing masks, which is a bone-headed, politically motivated move on all parties.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

tuxthepenguin

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 29, 2020, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on July 29, 2020, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 28, 2020, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 28, 2020, 09:33:27 PM
WRT the now-fired principal, had she been a Walmart cashier and made these sorts of remarks, she may have been fired.   But public school principals are public figures, and must not make divisive remarks that serve no purpose and may well indicate racism on line.   She will lose the confidence of her community, especially in a bright bright bright blue place like Vermont.  She has no tenure, further, and no right to maintain her position once her remarks demonstrate valid reasons to suspect she may be less than fair in her treatment of all her students and families.

Gotta disagree.

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

I almost agree with you. If something like "race relations" is a big part of the job, statements like this can indicate potential bias or ignorance that would prevent you from properly doing your job, so firing is a perfectly acceptable outcome. I don't see how that applies in this particular case, but it's possible to construct theoretical scenarios in which her firing was not completely insane. I also disagree that this didn't happen in the past. See, among others, Dalton Trumbo.

The line goes both ways, though.

At what point do we decide that someone has indicated a potential bias?  What is a correct philosophy or persona?  If a Facebook post expressing a political opinion (and BLM is political) can get one fired, we are sneaking toward an Orwellian culture.  As apl68 pointe out, there may be some reasons to question BLM.

Dalton Trumbo is indeed a perfect example.  As I said, we are on very thin ice here.   

And, again as apl68 just posted, BLM is destroying its own base through radicalism and zealotry.  FOX news and Breitbart just got new headlines. 

More importantly: Should apl68 now lose hu's job if someone finds out who apl68 really is?

No time to read the discussion that followed, but I wanted to respond to this. We can carry things out to an extreme. If a school administrator refers to minorities using the N-word, talks about nooses, keeps white sheets in his office, and is in charge of discipline for a school with minorities, they are clearly incapable of doing their job properly. It's not a matter of free speech. If a science teacher stands in front of the class and teaches the kids that all other planets rotate around Neptune, that science teacher should be fired. You can argue that these are not merely political or religious opinions. Well, some would say they are. There's a threshold where speech indicates inability to do the job you're paid to do.

As for Fox and Breitbart, they'll have something to talk about no matter what others do. The firing in question was crazy because it was crazy, not because Breitbart can make a story about it.