Ryan Sullivan, a Salinas High School math teacher, picketed Hillary Clinton’s campaign visit to Hartnell College in Salinas May 25 while holding a sign that said: “Hillary Clinton not fit to be President. President equals a man’s job.”
The sign, naturally, was photographed and quickly went viral on social media, where I encountered it. All of the respondents to the sign’s posting on social media pronounced Sullivan a vile, sexist fool who was unqualified to teach. There is a “fire Sullivan” hashtag on Twitter. I immediately guessed that the sign was probably intended as satire: it was just too stupid. Sure enough, satire is what Sullivan, with the social media screaming for his metaphorical head and to end his teaching career, claims the sign was. It was a joke! Don’t you get it?
“Disgusted by the statement on my sign? Good! I’m happy to hear you disagree with such outlandish statements.Unfortunately, I have several family and friends who express the point made on my sign (mostly behind closed doors), I wanted to bring their message into the public forum to show how ridiculously outdated it sounds in 2016. Glad to hear it bothered so many—opinions like that should.”
Of course, if Sullivan meant every word of the sign, he could still say the same thing, and if his job was on the line, he probably would. Sullivan reportedly wrote his thesis on the gender gap in high school mathematics classrooms to help teachers create a more equitable environment for students. Does that prove his sign was a joke?
Did he hand out his thesis at Hillary’s speech?
Your nearly impossible Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
What should the school do with this guy?
Well, let’s start with this: if he carried this sign and did not mean it as a joke, he could not be trusted to teach young women, and young women would have good reason not to respect him or his judgment. Would a teacher who held up a sign saying that blacks or gays were not qualified to be President even be allowed to keep teaching? It’s a firing offense.
He says it was a joke, and indeed there is some evidence that he doesn’t believe what the sign says. Does that mean, then, that it is OK for a teacher to carry racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic or homophobic signs as long as he doesn’t really believe what’s on the sign?
Hypothetical: Two men, both teachers, carry that sign outside Clinton events. No one who sees the signs in person knows either of them. Both signs go viral. Upsetting women, giving comfort to bigots….and only one of the men gets fired? What sense does that make—they did exactly the same thing, and communicated the same message! What if they both claim it was a joke, and neither has ever seemed to behave in a prejudicial fashion towards women? What if one has written a female-friendly thesis, and the other wrote his thesis on the mating habits of shellfish? Should that matter?
What if they trade signs at one of the events? Is the sign that was once a joke become serious misogyny because of what the sign’s holder didn’t write in his thesis?
Here is another big problem: carrying the sign was irresponsible and stupid whether it was a joke or not. Really, really stupid. It was lousy, incompetent satire, if satire was what was intended. The message wasn’t a bit funny, if it was supposed to be a joke. Does Sullivan really think this is why people oppose Hillary Clinton? That may even be dumber than what the sign says. Who was his intended audience for the sign, anyway? Who would think it was funny? Who would read it and think, “Gee, I should reconsider my sexist views on the Presidency, because now that I see them in print, I see the error of my ways!”?
I am almost, but not quite, ready to launch a companion to the Naked Teacher Principle, which holds that any secondary school teacher who allows photos or videos of herself or himself naked to be seen by his or her students cannot complain when he or she is deemed untrustworthy and unfit to teach. The new principle would be the Biased Teacher Principle, and would hold that any teacher who allows himself or herself to be associated with a statement or message that denigrates or indicates bias against any group that one or more of his or her students may belong to similarly cannot complain when that teacher is subsequently deemed untrustworthy and unfit to teach….even if that statement or message was intended as satire.
I am torn on this one. Help me out.
If I were Sullivan’s boss, however, I’d fire him. He brought negative attention to himself and the school, he was irresponsible and reckless, and…oh yes: he’s an idiot.
Ethics Alarms 
He needed a small-print disclaimer or subtext on it, like ‘Disagree? Vote for Hillary’ on the sign. He gave no context. It also looks like a 3rd-grader made it, he doesn’t seem to have given it a lot of thought. That was really stupid. He should realize by 2016 that what happens at a rally isn’t going to stay there if people are taking pictures.
“Does Sullivan really think this is why people oppose Hillary Clinton? ”
Yes! Just as so many liberals insist that when anyone opposes anything Obama does, it’s because they are ‘racist’, there’s a good number of people out there who believe that the opposition to Hillary is based solely on her gender. The investigation of her email issues is just a ‘smoke screen’ to oppose her that covers up the ‘real reason’, that the GOP can’t stand the idea of a woman in the White House.
When issues appears in the news, such as the Flint water crisis, or the raising of the price of the AIDS medication, it’s automatically assumed the perpetrator is a member of the GOP. If it isn’t, just shuffle the facts around until you can make it look that way. The Republican Governor of Michigan is now the culprit in social media and blogs for the entire water crisis, despite the involvement of the city manager and city council (‘figures a rich white GOP member could poison people and get away with it’). Shkreli was declared to be a Republican immediately, despite having given a hefty donation to the Democratic Party (people weren’t happy when that was disclosed). They cannot believe that one of their own could do wrong, it’s a bizarre stance, bordering on religious zealotry.
He deserves some kind of punishment. I am not sure if it’s a firing offence.
A disclaimer would have been good. I thought his point was going to be that it’s just as ridiculous a statement as voting for Hillary solely because she’s a woman. Alas, it was not even that nuanced.
Grade – unethical for satire poorly done. Punishment – two summers of teaching drivers ed.
I like it!
Can we agree that in a population as large as the US has there will be a non-zero number of voters who really hold those outdated opinions?
I’m seeing it pretty frequently on FB from women in their 40’s.
FB stands for what?
Facebook. Gee, AT, catch up!
I do not have and will never have a FB account. For that reason alone I may be forced into state-mandated therapy.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to abstain. The damn thing has its uses, though.
Yup. Whenever I start worrying that my personal information is just too private, I can get immediate relief by updating my Facebook profile.
Great for finding mindless Harambe memes.
I’m with you.
*facebook rejecting solidarity fistbump*
Since Tex seems to have a FB account, two things: 1) a defend Ryan Sulivan campaign with an appeal for defense funding, all juicy, emotional and shrill as 60s feminism, and 2) to set in motion a counter-meme against that loathsome gorilla. I’d argue he should have been shot long ago, then none of this would have happened. The ‘Bush Doctrine’ applied in zoo keeping.
Not outdated—wrong. But yes, there are racists. There are substantially fewer men who think women can’t perform leadership and management jobs.
A guy I went to college with was of the opinion there should be capital punishment for aesthetic crimes. Such incompetent satire (assuming it is intended as satire) should certainly be a fireable offense. I suppose he’s a math teacher, but didn’t he take even high school English or look up the word? Definition: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. I can’t find any humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule anywhere in that photo. But I’m not holding my breath. He’s obviously a Democrat.
I agree with the Biased Teacher Principle,but this guy should be fired because he is too idiotic to teach young minds. Period.
This is the riverbed my thoughts are flowing through. This isn’t just dumb, it’s high profile dumb, and he doesn’t seem to see any problem with it. I wonder if his socks are on over his shoes?
The best interests of the students is what should matter. If he does not really mean it and is not perceived as meaning it, and he has not lost the confidence of his students, at least in terms of his ability to teach math, then why get rid of him?
This all assumes he is good at teaching math. Quality in high school math teachers is really important. And some of them stink. If he was a sub-standard teacher then an incident like this is an opportunity to improve the school by replacing him with someone better.
Did Jonathan Swift really believe that babies should be killed and eaten when he wrote “A Modest Proposal”?
Agree with Abrams; if he is an effective math teacher, keep him. They are very hard to come by at the middle school and high school levels.
Did Jonathan Swift really believe that babies should be killed and eaten when he wrote “A Modest Proposal”?
No. Then again, I know Jonathan Swift, Jonathan Swift was a friend of mine, and Sullivan is no Jonathan Swift.
Did anyone, knowing who Swift was,not know what he wrote was satire? No. If Swift, not being a math teacher, walked around with a sign that said, “1 + 1 = 6”, might people have thought he was a devoid of math skills? Maybe. Was Jonathan Swift teaching Irish kids when he wrote that famous essay? Why, no. If I were an Irish kid, would I be especially confident that such a teacher had my best interests in mind? NO.
I think it’s a bad analogy, Shelly. Don’t put it on a sign.
If the details of this are all factual and there are no more factual details to interject into the conversation, I’d have to say the teacher cannot legally be fired from his teaching job for voicing an opinion outside of the school and not on the job regardless of how offensive some people may find the opinion. The teacher did nothing illegal and he has a constitutional right to voice his opinion even if it’s offensive. Firing the teacher would be nothing more than mob justice and unethical. I’d change that opinion if there are work related rules that can be used to terminate his employment for this, but it’s probably a grey line and the teacher might end up with some kind of civil rights case.
As for the intent of the sign; I don’t give a damn what this person claims after the fact, the sign said exactly what it said and there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the sign or the person holding the sign was trying to present a message other than what was on the sign. If, and that’s a really big if, the person was actually trying to convey a different message, then he was clearly ignorant to present it the way he did – it failed miserably.
All that said; words have consequences. Personally I don’t believe a word of the teacher’s after-the-fact stated intent. This teacher has earned and deserves to be scorned and ostracized for what he did, regardless of his after-the-fact stated intent.
We the people have the right to do and say what ever we want; however, that does not make what we do and say right.
There; that should spark some conversation.
I’m going to Tweet your comment, Zoltar. But I need 1) your home address and your real name, and 2) the name of your employer. Does s/he know that you are chiming up inappropriately in Cyberspace? Well, in about one hour we will fix that. By plywood to nail over your windows and doors and do a month’s shopping. Your life will be upended.
“The teacher did nothing illegal and he has a constitutional right to voice his opinion even if it’s offensive.” That’s just factually wrong. Teachers all have clauses in their contracts that require certain level of public respectability: how do you think the naked teachers and ex-porn stars get fired? They didn’t break laws either. Do you really think a New York City public school teacher who posts racist Facebook messages can’t be fired? Remember the guy who was fired for berating the Chick-Fil-A clerk? Remember the Gallaudet student counsellor who was reassigned after her name turned up on a pro-DOMA petition?
The teacher can be fired if the public message damages his ability to teach and undermines the school. Government officials can be fired when their statement undermine their position and effectiveness.
Really Jack, didn’t you bother to read beyond that sentence?
I’m not a teacher, I’ve never read a teacher contract, that’s exactly why I wrote, “I’d change that opinion if there are work related rules that can be used to terminate his employment for this…”
More coffee is in order Jack. 🙂
No I didn’t, because “If the details of this are all factual and there are no more factual details to interject into the conversation, I’d have to say the teacher cannot legally be fired from his teaching job for voicing an opinion outside of the school and not on the job regardless of how offensive some people may find the opinion.” is stated as unqualified. The clause I mentioned helps, but it’s not necessary. A public statement or event that harms an institution and makes it difficult for an employee to perform duties is always a valid and legal reason to fire someone. Unions may fight it, and may fight it successfully, but it’s not a Constitutional or free speech issue.
If this is a public school I’d say it does bring up a Constitutional issue. If the school was willing to fire him for this, but not, say, “Hillary Clinton is only being investigated because the Republicans are out to get her,” the school would be imposing a clear viewpoint based speech restriction, subject to the highest level of scrutiny. Although I agree that his ability to teach may be undermined by his statement, I also understand the slippery slope which allowing viewpoint-based restrictions would lead down, and I’d say let him keep his job. Private school, go ahead and fire him.
That’s just wrong. One is viewpoint censorship, the other is related to work. If, in a case with a real life model, someone who teachers handicapped students writes on Facebook the the crippled little bastards are a pain in the neck, and sometimes I wish they would die, those sentiments may be true, but a teacher can’t make them public.
By the way Jack, my statement “the teacher did nothing illegal and he has a constitutional right to voice his opinion even if it’s offensive.” is 100% factually accurate! If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
Of course. He has a absolute right to his opinion, and the school has a right to decide that someone who is irresponsible in choosing the time and forum to express that opinion can’t be trusted to teach children and represent the school. I have a right to say my boss is an asshole. I don’t have a right to keep working for him after I say it.
“A public statement or event that harms an institution and makes it difficult for an employee to perform duties is always a valid and legal reason to fire someone.”
_______________________
It seems to me you’d have to say ‘a reason’ but not necessarily a ‘valid reason’. The legal issue is, I think, different.
What about the issue that arises out of this issue? What I mean is acute sensitivity in the populus, motivated nearly by hysteria, where almost anything, any statement, any act, if noticed by someone who chooses to take offense, can be used in a campaign to fire someone? What would you have to say about ‘acute sensitivity’ or as I say hysterical reaction carried to extremes? Is this an ethical concern for you?
But that’s not involved. “Harms an institution and makes it difficult for an employee to perform duties” does not include ” sparks politically correct wackos to complain.”
Given the clause I’d have to agree: Any scandal of any sort could be interpreted as ‘harming the institution’. Such as: being a homosexual activist outside of school hours, and getting involved in the politics. Or the same if he were vocal as a Christian. The examples are endless.
And who decides who are and who are not ‘politically-correct wackos’?
I have been continuing the reading of Right-wing Critics of American Conservatism and am now reading up on Ron Paul. Would you say that his ‘Newsletters’ and their content (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters) disqualifies him – or any other who might think as he does – from participation in government? Should he, on principle or through interpretation of the law, be excommunicated?
The point is: What is ‘appropriate opinion’ for one is ‘completely unacceptable expression’ for some other.
“Such as: being a homosexual activist outside of school hours, and getting involved in the politics.”
Nope. You still don’t get it. A school afraid to upset bigots is not “reasonable.” Unless the school was a religious institution that opposed homosexuality as a sin, a teacher’s pro-gay rights activism could not be used to fire him, and would be treated, correctly, as a pretense for discrimination.
The cultural majority matters in these cases. Fringes don’t.
I think that you are correct in identifying ‘the cultural majority’ as the mover or motivator. Obviously, and this is a subtext here to my opinions and my participation, it would have to be acknowledged that my own opinions, as has been noted on other threads, fall into the category of opinions not held by ‘the cultural majority’, and for this reason it is up in the air whether I am ‘ethical’ or not.
You are right to say that I don’t get it. But it is not that I am not trying to get it. Usually, when I observe you argue your points, I notice that you have a superior principle in mind. For example, now, the mention of what is ‘reasonable’. I do notice that you are working – quite hard – to establish rational guidelines that are defensible legally.
I must agree with you: ‘The cultural majority matters in these cases’. The difficult part though would be when the ‘majority’ do not arrive at conclusions that accord with our ideas about what is right and correct, and when the majority begins to act like a mob to silence or drive out of the public (or the private) sphere the holder of unpopular opinions.
I would be concerned, and in some sense I am concerned, when I notice a psychological or ‘hysterical’ dimension come into play.
But there is even another issue here and one that I do not know how to resolve. Yet it is important for understanding our present. It is that it is possible, and likely, that some percentage of people – men and women alike though I admit more likely men – do not believe that a woman IS qualified (emotionally, biologically, psychologically, or whatever) from holding such an office.
What you seem to imply is that ‘a majority’ who thinks oppositely, by being in the majority, has the power and the right to drive that opinion out of the marketplace of ideas. And we also know that some certain percentage of people hold other opinions on race, on culture, on metaphysics, and any number of different hot-topics that are not in accord with the ‘majority’ that you mention.
I understand all this, and I understand how ‘our present’ is dominated by this ‘majority’ and that this majority may even dictate values and mediate acceptable ideas. But I see problems here and they are not small ones.
‘A certain level of respectability’ is open to a great deal of interpretation. Let us suppose a teacher who is a Christian and believes literally in some of the tenets of Christianity, and expresses them. And let’s suppose that he is called to task for communicating, let’s say after class, such retrograde and backward things to the poor impressionable youngsters. And someone declares that he is ‘unfit to be a teacher of the young’. This is the way things are going. There is a great deal of contention about what ‘a certain level of respectability’ is.
What about a gay teacher, a male homosexual, who after class starts a group or a conversation about homosexual sex. There is a large faction, these days, that would not blink an eye, and that would support him. They’d be up in arms if some conservative group of drooling and backward sh*t-kickers had anything to say about it.
It is conventions of the present and not principles that seem to dictate what is appropriate and ‘respectable’ behavior.
I do not deny that such a clause exists, it likely does, and it likely could be used. But from my perspective the whole issue is perverse. The higher ethical ground is to support his right to assert his opinion but to be forced to defend it and explain it. And if he is shown to be wrong, and if this happens in the context of encouraging communication and defnse of idea, then this serves society much better than Twitter campaigns intended to destroy the man’s life.
I see things differently. First, the man has a right to have his opinion and to state it. That trumps all other concerns that have been brought out. But what he must be willing to do is to explain and defend his ideas. Even if he be a teacher. Especially if he is a teacher.
I have noticed some people on this Blog complaining that in university environments, supposedly devoted to the free exchange of ideas, people clamor to clamp down on the expression of ideas that they do not like. And as Humble Talent noted in a recent posting they equate expression with an act of harm-doing. Saying something is seen as a harm in itself.
And once the Twitter crowd latches onto it, and once the image of the terrible harm is broadcast out, it is like the pouring of gasoline on an emotional fire. That means, no thought is required; one has assumed that one’s reaction is 100% justified; one teams up in an expression of mass-psychology (a mob) that will stop at next to nothing to take down their target.
And this is the sort of behavior that you-plural seek to encourage? To create justification for? I totally do not get it. By supporting this level of reaction against the articulation of an opinion I’d ask Where will you stop? The answer: There is no good reason to stop at any point, and no clear articulation as to where this sort of encouraged reaction must be stopped.
So, you are supporting, essentially, the same level of mob reaction that causes riots in Furgeson and all the uproar among Blacks as a result of BLM activism. If it is not ‘the same’ it certainly seems to have links.
This man and any other person, anywhere, has a right to have an opinion that runs contrary to the thinking of the day. It is far more crucial that the free speech principle is defended than it is to do harm to this man because you-plural do not like his opinion.
(I do understand that he was attempting to play a sort of game and that the opinion stated is not his, or rather he has the opposite opinion. He is guilt of a badly-enacted satire and of creating an uproar, but that is mere unthinking silliness, not a crime).
Another possibility is that it was an intended frame-up, a leftist carrying a bigoted protest sign so that it could be reported that the candidate was met with bigoted protest signs.
This situation has some similarity to the use of nasty words in entertainment. I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to suppress language, you have to do it across the board. You can’t let Chris Rock say what he wants and then suppress what some kid says, because the kid might be the next Chris Rock. This should receive a similar analysis – it’s the sign that counts, not the person carrying it.
“it’s the sign that counts, not the person carrying it.”
That’s the real issue, isn’t it?
I think schools are in short supply of good math teachers. If he is a good math teacher and has no history of harassment or similar claims, the school should keep him. If he’s got a history of problems or the administration otherwise hates him (I suspect he might not be the most popular guy in the teachers’ lunch room), the school can use this as a good excuse to get rid of him.
Should the school use this as an excuse to get rid of him? If his female students learn about this and have legitimate doubts whether it was really “a joke” or not? Is it still an “excuse”?
Students know their teachers. They would have a better sense than us whether or not he is a misogynist or just awful at telling jokes and making political statements. A good principal would investigate before taking action.
I think that’s right. He’d certainly have to get a serious lecture. What a dumb stunt.
I think he’s too much of an idiot to be trusted teaching high school kids. I don’t care if he’s Einstein, he’s a dope. Keep him away from sharp objects and kids.
What’s interesting to me about this story is that I had a misogynist math teacher in high school. It was for an honors trig/pre-calc class. He had a long history of being terrible toward girls, but he also was incredibly smart so I decided to give the class a try. There were only four girls signed up. On the first day, he made four checks on the board, representing the four girls in the class. He announced that all the girls would drop by the end of the semester. Three weeks later, I was the first to drop out, and one of my friends followed me a few weeks after that. Two of the girls stuck it out, but they were traumatized. The man was a jerk and had no business teaching — even though he was brilliant.
That’s the worst. Shouldn’t have happened Beth. They owe you an apology. Awful.
ARRRGHHH! What a horrible story! How can anyone argue against the position that this should never be permitted?
Of course, this happened in what, 1990? Times have changed. I’m not excusing the behavior, but I would be shocked if my kiddos experience anything similar today. And, you can be certain that I would never let this happen.
I’m really just shocked, and I think I understand better now why my younger sister, who can do almost anything I can do as well or better, is so much more anxious and less trusting than I am, and even a bit resentful. Did she really have to put up with crap like this? I was brought up by strong women, had a brilliant sister, and knew too many superior female contemporaries to count….and this was a loooooong time ago. Guys who sold girls short in school seemed like just idiots–I never dreamed they are a majority.
I remember how my sister was a star of the high school chess team (I was the Captain), and how the nerds who played her in our tournaments chuckled and assumed she would be an easy mark (for some strange reason, chess is male-dominated). She mopped the board with them. She was the most aggressive, ruthless player I’ve ever seen. She humiliated them.
Served them right.
I guess now isn’t the time to tell you that my high school tried to not send me to an out of city quiz bowl tournament because I was the only girl and the school would have to pay for a second room. They made the mistake of asking my father if they could put a male alternate in my place.
KABOOM!
“Kaboom” is more what the school experienced. My dad was an explosive kind of guy.
My guess is that your sister had to put up with a lot more than me, just like my kids will have an easier time than I did. When I talk to career women of previous generations, I always try to thank them. They paved the way.
I taught high school in the ’70s. I can’t imagine anybody getting away with running off girls from a trig class then, or even when I was in high school in the ’60s (but I went to an all boys Catholic HS so that may be irrelevant). But teachers weren’t as idiot as Beth’s teacher or the guy above with the sign. I taught with some ordinary intellects (coaches) but also with many very smart people. And if someone had tried to pull what happened to Beth, the principal would have been on the like white on rice. The notion that the guy was “brilliant” and therefore free to do anything he wanted is very toxic. It’s given us Al Gore and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. All supposedly “the brightest people in the room.” (Well of course they are, they’re Democrats). Deference to people who test well (or say they do) but are simply ruthless, greedy narcissists is a real problem in our society.
He deserves to be fired – at best it seems that he’s an idiot. But maybe to keep his job he should write “Hatred of women is not a joke. Women and men are equal.” – one hundred times on every chalkboard (or modern equivalent) in every classroom in every school in the school district. Giving brief, respectful, age-appropriate apology/explanation in every class. Video to be posted widely.
I approach these questions of difference between men and women (I just read up on some of the chess controvery and the issue of why there are so few women in the chess world) differently. My idea is that physiologically, that is, between a male and a female brain, there is not a great deal of structural difference. Men and women of the same class and social group, and also of course racial and cultural group, will have – indeed must have – similarly structured brains. One being just as intellectually capable as the other.
But the difference that makes the difference is the ‘vessel’ in which that brain is housed. The female body is a radically different body and the structure(s) of that body, in varying degrees, dominate so to speak that similarly configured brain.
I notice the following though: In today’s climate of opinion, and in a cliamte where the politically correct enters in as a motivator or propeller, women and men must be seen as exactly the same. This ‘must be seen’ is where so much hinges. This stems from the women’s movement of course and the idea that to be politically correct you must force yourself to see things in the ways that have been determined to be the correct ways. That is a large factor. When I notice this PC motive, and one noticed it in certain key areas and in relation to certain key questions (as in ‘women in math and engineering’ etc.) immediately my alarm bells go off: I am very likely going to be lied to, fed misinformation, or partial information, which has as its purpose to support a poltically-correct assertion that may, in fact, be false.
Men and women have been adapted to have very different ‘vessels’ as I say. This seems to me 100% undeniable given the radically different physical structures. It is the difference between the physical structures that house the brain and the mind that determine a great deal about how women perform, in what they participate, and much else. Thus I have asserted not a ‘sexist’- defined difference, but yet one related to sex and physical structure.
I’ll take my beating off the air… 🙂
I don’t understand. What on earth do the physical differences between men and women have to do with qualifications for the presidency? It’s not a job that requires much in the way of physical labor.
Starting with Beth’s comment about 8-9 posts up, she veered into a separate area of concern, or the concern that stands behind the primary concern of this blog post. Jack brought up the issue of women and chess. In the chess world – but this also extends to the engineering and math worlds – it has been a tenet of understanding that men will always excel and that women do not compete well, perhaps for physiological reasons.. According to many, now, this is a false belief. It is a retrograde belief. And it is one that will lead to social condemnation.
My endeavor here, but also everywhere that I have presence, and in any forum or platform where I am given the opportunity to share my perspectives, is to seek ways and means to counter what I consider to be badly-founded thinking, or ‘politically correct thinking’, or coerced thinking, or conventional thinking, or thinking driven by social mood or social ‘hysteria’. I note this sort of thinking *everywhere*. While I might say I notice it among lefties, I am also beginning to notice that it has infected conservative thinking too. It may always have been there and as I say I am just beginning to notice it, and to describe it. My endeavor is to locate thinking , that is, to discover the sources that inform it. I still tend to think that conservative thinkers think more rationally and are less susceptible to ‘hysteria’ and sentimentalism.
For this reason, when I noticed the recent rehearsal about the horrors of a evil math professor who inflicted profound wounds onto the emotional and intellectual bodies of the Four Females who attempted the difficult math class with the Demon Math Professor, I noticed something occurring. To speak about that ‘something more’ Is part of my chosen endeavor. I’ve entered into a Devil’s Bargain you see and I have made a conscious effort to turn against the God and the gods of the present. I know, I know Chris, my very soul is on the line.
I said therefor that based on my (I admit here) limited study – yet I did attempt a study of these issues and of evolutionary biology because I wanted to better understand MYSELF – I came to entertain the idea that I presented, just above, in the post that drew your attention. One source that I read, among 4-5 different sources, was Louann Brizendine’s ‘The Female Brain’.
Briefly, the brain structure is non-different (largely but not completely, and it is the small differences that make the difference) between males and females. But what makes a large difference – all the difference in the world IMHO – is the ‘vessel’ that holds the brain. For you to understand that physiological difference, and thus my argument, would involve you in some study and research, if only to be able to refute my conclusion.
What I desire to do, and what I do not see going on, is to really think things through and not, as I see on various fora and bloga, just to spout out emotionalisms.
Have I answered your question? And do I get a cookie?
“For you to understand that physiological difference, and thus my argument, would involve you in some study and research, if only to be able to refute my conclusion.”
No, Alizia, it would simply require you to make an actual, coherent argument that can be refuted. You haven’t said anything of substance above–you keep talking about how you challenge people’s thinking, how everyone is so politically correct, but you never come out and say what you mean. This jibberish, for instance:
For this reason, when I noticed the recent rehearsal about the horrors of a evil math professor who inflicted profound wounds onto the emotional and intellectual bodies of the Four Females who attempted the difficult math class with the Demon Math Professor, I noticed something occurring. To speak about that ‘something more’ Is part of my chosen endeavor. I’ve entered into a Devil’s Bargain you see and I have made a conscious effort to turn against the God and the gods of the present. I know, I know Chris, my very soul is on the line.
There’s no conclusion here, just sneering contempt. What are you trying to say? That the math professor was right to harass and discourage his students? That it was ethical of him to pressure his students to drop out? You don’t say; you just dance around the issue, and then call others PC for saying exactly what they mean.
No, you have not answered my question.
Chris,
Generally speaking; Alizia doesn’t understand the difference between genuinely intelligent articulation of ideas and fence post sitting randomness. But that’s just my overall opinion of her comments.
A certain amount of what you say is true. I find that to make absolutely certain statements about anything requires absolute certainty. I do not have absolute certainty. I often only have *senses* about things.
::: shrugs :::
But you did understand the rest of what I wrote? The point I made there was clear as day.
It was clear to no one but you, Alizia.
I asked you this:
“What on earth do the physical differences between men and women have to do with qualifications for the presidency? It’s not a job that requires much in the way of physical labor.”
At no point in your response did you answer my question.
Will you answer it now?
I think I will choose the opt-out option. It is possible that you really cannot understand what I attempted to communicate. If that is so, I can’t help you any further.
So it’s MY fault that you can’t answer a simple question? Absurd.
It is likely more the sins of your forefathers. I see you as blameless but not free of responsibility. 😉
Please don’t think that I do not relish the opportunity to scrap with you. I confess that you seem an unworthy opponent though.
Still, I invite you to comment on other threads, say for example the Dress Code post. I have crystallized some of my overall thoughts about *you-plural’. I’ll happily ideologically battle you and grind you into the ground.
I only ask that you don’t drool on me. I have a thing about hyper-liberal drool … I theorize it eats away at the gray material but the precise mechanism how it does that I’m still uncertain.
Eat some spinach or something and we’ll catch up later.
PS: You will perhaps notice, and you should notice, that in my overall views I am placing much more emphasis on biological difference and physical difference. This is because I am interested in genetics and also (*gasp*) eugenics. My eugenics operate in two areas: one is the biological and the physical, but the other has to do with the *idea realm*.
In the same way that there is a necessary genetic science, and by that I mean that people must pay attention to all that genetics and eugenics proposes, despite any level of discomfort and aversion or as-against the mind-control and opinion-control of the present which is very very powerful, so too is there a necessary mental eugenics: the purification of thought, and the hunting down of destructive strains of thought that have muddled our minds.
To speak in terms of ‘mental infections’ and ‘ideological infections’ is to suggest rather radical praxis. And yet I am being considetent and honest when I lay out my cards on the table. Two red Aces, a King and a Queen and I’m waiting for my next card …
I think it’s important to remember that nobody has the right to doubt anybody else’s sense of humor. He thinks it’s funny to hold up that obviously satirical sign in order to call the beliefs of the people he apparently knows into question? He has every right to. It isn’t holding up signs that appear offensive on face value that gets teachers fired, it’s people like the people I see posting on this page that is the reason they get fired. He openly expresses mysognist or racist views that his students and co-workers complain about? Fire him. A bunch of people on Facebook saw a picture of him making a joke they didn’t get…one time? No. Definitely not a cause for being fired. The only reason they would fire him is to get the public off their back.
The school knows if he is mysognist. The students and teachers at that school would know if he is mysognist. They have all of the information in their hands as to whether or not they let him be responsible for teaching students or whether they should fire him, definitely not us. All we have is a single photo that has gone viral on the Internet, and that, really, is like judging a book by a picture someone drew of the cover.
People have a right to express comedy in whatever way they feel they want to as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
And no, offending people who don’t get a joke does not count as hurting people.
The idea that anyone here believes they know this man’s whole story off a picture and few public statements is mad. All anyone here is doing is making blind assumptions based on minimal knowledge, which definitely isn’t ethics.
Ha, just realised this sounds quite hostile, apologies. Just feel quite strongly about this sort of thing.
“I think it’s important to remember that nobody has the right to doubt anybody else’s sense of humor.”
Nonsense. Do you not know what a “right” is?
I agree that he should not be fired for this, but the joke doesn’t work as satire for all the reasons Jack explained it doesn’t work.