Not even that for me - it would be "I know you want to bring maths alive for your students and help them with trigonometry, but you look like an idiot"

What teachers have the right to harass and belittle their students for any reason they deem appropriate, though race and sexuality are of course popular favorites.

Next you will be thinking that maybe a white supremacist podcast is not an appropriate hobby for a teacher? Why who better to present both sides of the history of the holocaust?

Because it would be uncomfortable for him

How can I offend thee, let me count the ways....

Teacher uses, um, questionable methods for teaching trigonometry.

https://twitter.com/UrbanInuk/status...89276557025280

Whatever happened to "Some Old Horse Came A-Hopping Through Our Alley"?

No word on whether she has been fired yet...or "put on administrative leave" even.

She's definitely pretty committed to her performance by the looks of things....

https://twitter.com/CommunistsEgirl/...58863541719040

A simply baffling level of bad judgement at work here. It's really hard to imagine why anyone would think this was appropriate, unless this was some stunt to get fired intentionally.

It's not like she is some 65 year old person claiming, "Well it was acceptable when I started doing it back in 1980"

Apparently she has been doing this for almost 10 years. No, it was not considered acceptable back in 2012. Protests against the Braves's and Florida St "tomahawk chop" go back to at least 1994.

Yes, it is a baffling lack of awareness. This is why I would not want her to continue teaching. Anyone so completely clueless on this is not someone I would trust.

I've seen some suggesting that "oh, the principal just needs to have a talk with her," but I don't see it. Does she really need to be told this is inappropriate?

(the sadder ones are those who are actually trying to excuse it because, hey, she's trying to teach a difficult subject. Um, no)

Is this something that is made more or less outrageous by watching the video with the sound off?

Popehat, aka Ken White, out of LA has this to say about Riverside:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1...416811524?s=19

So maybe this lady is living in some bubble where this very racist routine might seem normal. I'm not familiar with the area but this local isn't exactly doing them any favors for their reputation.

She is now on "leave"

until it blows over? I hope not.

Because

1. The petty bickering that goes on in academia is of little interest to me, and

2. I already know that FIRE defends speech I find unacceptable and indefensible, and

3. Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

I would no more read a FIRE article than I would read an article on OAN or Newsmax.

True. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an organisation with a clearly Liberal bias supporting the speech of predominantly bigots and racists on the far right, and doing so under the cover of advocating "academic freedom of speech".

At least you're upfront trying to censor ideas you don't like. [emoji106]

How on earth is the professor in the linked article a bigot?

He weighs the same as a duck.

The New York Times on the Dorian Abbot affair at NYT...



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/u...abbot-mit.html


Jerry Coyne (Who is quoted in the NYT article.) also published a comentary on his blog.



https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/...g-on-its-face/

Yeah, I get what you mean. I did say that the principal should have a word with her, but given the second video and the knowledge that she’s been doing this for some time I would think it requires a bit more than a word. I tend to be optimistic about the idea that people can be better so the school admin should look into this, probably issue a warning and some retraining. I still don’t like to support firings as a first response, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to that.

I think the point of having people like Fire is to protect academic freedoms. It means that the person is irrelevant. The principle is important. We shouldn’t just fire people because we don’t like their ideas or their political persuasion.

It’s like the ACLU or Amnesty International. They are not so interested in how big an ******* the person they are defending is, and I fully support organizations who can separate principle from emotions.

Also, someone who unironically used the term “Uncle Tom” would probably get fired.

It's a slur; it's only directed at black folks.

Draw your own conclusions.

I know. It’s racist to use Uncle Tom in the context of a black person acting white or supporting white supremacy etc…

If you read and understood the reply to the last post you quoted me in, you would realise that...

If that is your glib, one-dimensional view of what I said, then, OK, whatever :rolleyes:

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us". You do advocate for absolute free speech after all! ;)

I think this again misunderstands the distinction, and a big one at that, of saying you uphold the right of speech without having to advocate that particular speech.

If I say, "Sure, I think Communist Parties should be legal", it doesn't mean that I must therefore be a Communist.

If I think it should be legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to say, "God Hates Fags" it doesn't mean I therefore believe that God Hates Fags.

The question should be about the right to that speech and the appropriateness of certain types of speech in certain settings (which is where some of the anti-cancel culture people go wrong because they often assume that just because something is legal it should be permitted in all workplaces).

The point is not that if you support a person's right to say something that you must therefore agree with what they say.

I unequivocally withdraw and apologise for using that term. I knew it was offensive and I shouldn't have used it.

Replace with "scumbag"

WOW! That's some Satanic Panic level paranoia and pants crapping right there :eye-poppi

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand

Bobbymyseh!

Dunno if there's a Yiddish saying for moving the goalposts, but to go from Ayers lecturing in Chicago to Neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is quite impressive.

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

Its quite simple: Either you think free speech should be absolute, or you don't. There is no nuanced position as long as you hold that view.

You d4m10n , advocate for absolute, unrestricted free speech. Picking and choosing how bad its allowed to be before it does or does not meet your standard for "absolute" is not an option. ALL speech would be free speech, and therefore absolutely allowed. That means I could publish detailed plans for the building of a bomb, call 911 and make a false report of a home invasion, make a public death threat against anyone, and yes, yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you would have to defend my rights to do all these things because you would be defending my free speech rights.

If ANY of these things were unacceptable to you, and you favour the idea of a law that would make any of these things a crime, then that is "speech you don't like" so you aren't really an advocate for absolute free speech, you are just like me, the only difference is that you and I draw the line in different places.

Well, I forgive you. But would smartcooky forgive with you? ;)

The braying buffoons won't stop about Superman. Clark Kent's son is bisexual. Why would a ripped, spandex-wearing dude impervious to AIDs have sex with men?? It makes no sense.

Now there's some foul-mouthed colorist quitting his job at DC for reasons not unlike people are quitting Netflix. Aggressively oblivious and hypocritical conservatives are praising him. "What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world," Eltaeb [the quitter colorist] added. "**** that it was Truth, Justice, and the American way," he said. "My Grandpa almost died in World War II; we don’t have a right to destroy **** that people died for to give us. It’s a bunch of ******* nonsense."

His grandpa almost died for dumb comic books?? Superman is an illegal alien. He wasn't even born in the United States. He took an American's job and works in the fake news. He could've been a farmer in Kansas, but nooooooooo. He's moving to the big city -- probably to lead double life involving sex with men in phone booths.

Were corporations true to the character when he was used for Cold War propaganda? If nothing else, being dedicated to a "better tomorrow" makes him truer to his roots: It kind of makes sense that an alien would have a more cosmopolitan outlook (the word "cosmopolitan" is derived from "cosmos". The Superman character is based on (or at least has been inspired by) Christ mythology. Is Jesus also an American?

Pretty sure I've never advocated for legalizing defamation or death threats. Are you sure you've got the right d4m10n here?

ETA: https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

Yes, I'm sure.

If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech then ipso facto, you are advocating for legalizing defamation or death threats - this is unavoidable. The moment you say "well, I don't support legalizing defamation or death threats", then you are drawing a line, and therefore it follows with elegant inevitability, that you are not advocating for absolute freedom of speech. That makes you the same as me, someone who beleives in limited free speech, you just draw the line in a different place.

Why are you talking about this? No one here advocates for absolute freedom of speech so as to include death threats, fraud, criminal conspiracy, etc.

Huh?

Nobody is a free speech absolutist.

There are, as I said, two points, which should not be confused.

1.) Free speech as a right that should not be infringed, where possible, by the government. This obviously does not include threats of violence etc... but also in some jurisdictions this does not include hate speech. Where to draw the line in terms of harm is a difficult one.

2.) The appropriateness of certain types of speech that while perfectly legal in other contexts, may still be unacceptable in certain employment settings.

People seem to get really confused about these two things.

In addition, there is...

3) ...sometimes claims that protests or criticisms are illegitimate because they are attempts to cancel. However, if you firmly believe in the rights of people under 1, then you cannot really complain too much, or at least consistently, with people doing 3.

And there's the qualifier.

You support free speech, but you draw the line at death threats, which you are happy to see criminalised, i.e. you are happy to censor speech you don't like

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

A good thing you aren’t a lawmaker.

Wait - his name is Eltaeb? Is he a big Beatles fan or something?

I'd be par for the course in most countries in the European Union!

On the other hand, if speech is treated like other potentially harmful acts, then truth is no defense. Some history is genuinely painful to discuss. Some of it is well settled while other bits are more theoretical and require discussion to settle. Without certain freedoms for such discussions, how can we ever learn the truth?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Now it comes out that the school was well-aware, having actually promoted her activity in the yearbook back in 2012.

No one has asked me, but my take on Dace Chappelle, like most comedians, is that he’s mostly only funny when he’s punching up. Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying. The fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that he’s punching down says he’s gotten out of touch with the world around him.

Now that we've seen Jon Gruden's emails, how long should he go to prison?

Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people, they want ADDITIONAL funding beyond that ONLY FOR transgender people. Do you think that Netflix has a fund JUST FOR black people, or JUST FOR females or JUST FOR gay people? Everyone else shares the same fund, which the transgender people ALSO share. They're asking for extra funds that only they are allowed to use. That's a special privilege.

Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

Irrelevant. None of those ratings suggest alternatives. When a show is rated for Violence, Netflix doesn't seem to feel compelled to "suggest" a show rated "peace" as an alternative.

I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

ROFL

The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smarcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

Topsy-turvy world: A black male is "punching down" at middle and upper class white males... whereas those particular middle and upper class white males are "punching up" at females.

You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize