Meanwhile, for Trinity College, the countdown has started.
After Professor Johnny Eric Williams, associate professor of sociology at Trinity College in Hartford, approvingly posted a Medium article titled “Let Them Fucking Die” on Facebook, he went on to endorse the article’s thesis ( potential rescuers like those who helped Rep. Steve Scalise should let imperiled white people die as a form of combating white supremacy) in his own Facebook posts:
The Medium article concluded with this advice regarding one’s responsibilities as a citizen and a human being when a white person is in mortal peril…
“If you see them drowning. If you see them in a burning building. If they are teetering on the edge of a cliff” “oppressed people” should “Do nothing.”
“Least of all put your life on the line for theirs, and do not dare think doing so, putting your life on the line for theirs, gives you reason or cause to feel celestial. Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous. Let. Them. F*cking. Die. And smile a bit when you do. For you have done the universe a great service. Ashes to ashes. Dust to bigots.”
There is no problem with a professor, or anyone, linking to an ugly and deranged article like this one. I can see the benefit of reading it, if only to see how human beings can convince themselves that wrong is right, evil is righteous, up is down and backwards is forwards. Allying oneself with such sentiments disqualifies an individual from certain professions, as well as from being respected in social and political discourse, and trusted in daily interpersonal and business encounters.
Ruled right out by such bigotry: Law enforcement. Medical professional. Fire fighter. Elected official.
Teacher.
Once a professor has expressed such views, no respectable institution or school can trust him, and no students can either. He is a poison to the system and the culture, and potentially poison to young minds. A countdown starts now: if Trinity, a prestigious liberal arts institution (I have a long-time friend who teaches there) takes more than a few days to eliminate this violent racist and bigot from its faculty, then it will be prestigious no longer. Indeed, I wonder if the school hasn’t forfeited its status by hiring someone like Williams. (How many faculty members agree with him? How many professors who agree with him lurk on other faculties, but are more discrete?)
I am open to hearing, eager to read, even, serious and persuasive arguments why Prof. Williams should be permitted to continue teaching, at Trinity or anywhere else.
I cannot imagine what they would be.
Ethics Alarms 
He’s reportedly fled the campus after receiving multiple threats.
Here’s his apology:
“In yesterday’s frenzy, amid the the escalating threats to my family and me and the incessant harassment that so many associated with Trinity College were receiving, there is one important thing I didn’t say: I am sorry. I regret that the hashtag that I quoted from the title of an article was misinterpreted and mis-perceived as inciting violence and calling for the death of ‘white’ people.
“I never intended to invite or incite violence. My only aim was to bring awareness to white supremacy and to inspire others to address these kinds of injustices.”
That is a wildly disingenuous apology.
Yeah. Agreed. Though should he be apologizing for sharing a Facebook article reminding people that they have no duty to rescue, especially no duty to rescue people that mean them harm?
That’s not all the article says, nor is it all the professor said. So yes, he should.
What did you find offensive in what the article said?
And as far as what the professor said, do you think minorities should not seek to overthrow a “white supremacist system?”
See my comment below, deery.
What white supremacist system? Are we in South Africa?
You see, the problem with that little idea, deery, is that a minority is just that: less populous than the majority. Most such rescuers are likely to be white, no matter the race of the one in peril.
Once something like this happens (and it would be BIG news should the abstaining responder admit as to why they did not do their job) how long until you would need someone present to match the race of the person needing help? Since most folks are white, fewer of them would die as a result, and there you would go about how racist the white people are!
And how ‘racist’ would the Ambulance company, the fire department, or the police be when they justifiably fired a minority for taking this advice, even if the miscreant do not admit why? They would have fired a racist in reality, and not because they are racist themselves.
Discussed downthread. Rescue personnel have the duty to rescue. They volunteered for that imposed duty.
Annnnnd, Capitol Police on security detail, have the duty to engage with shooters aiming at the person they’re assigned to protect, for the same reasons. Thus, she was not going “above and beyond”.
It’s not even true that the people “mean them harm.” Every bit of this, including your apology for it, is beyond the pale.
Wow. Nice anti-Irish dog whistle.
Bigot.
I’ll buy some Racism Offsets to make up for it.
You owe me a keyboard. Very funny.
He’d better keep running. I could rant about the fate he deserves, but Jack specifically said he wants less ranting. What I will say is that this should come as no surprise. That article was pure unbridled hate and racism from start to finish. Had it been directed elsewhere and said let the blacks die, they are muggers and rapists in training, or let the Hispanics die, they are parasites, or let the Muslims die, they are either terrorists or terror supporters, or let the gays die, they are all perverts and disease vectors, it wouldn’t have taken 24 hours for him to be fired, and 48 for street justice to have been meted out. I won’t wish street justice on him, but he needs to go.
I’d like to hear your rant. I’ll send you my email address.
I think this would rate #10 on Jack’s apology scale, “An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.”
Yes, it would be a #10.
These hateful cowards run a predictable pattern every time some scandal like this breaks out:
-Say or do something so horrible and shocking that random people on the fringes of the internet will rush to your Twitter or Facebook page en masse tell you that you deserve to die in a fire.
-Play the victim and claim that there have been “multiple threats” “harassment” and especially “threats to my family,” glossing over the fact that not a single one of those “threats” was credible.
-Use newfound 15 minutes of fame to reframe your horrible behavior in a more agreeable way to the press, making sure to lie some more about you were “targeted” and “harassed” (by mean tweets), and play to anyone unscrupulous enough to support you out of pure ideological bias towards your position. With any luck you can end up with some Kickstarter money and a book deal out of being a terrible citizen!
If Johnny Williams was in a bar fight, he’d probably sneak up behind someone to hit them with a bottle, then grab the nearest woman to use as a shield to defend against retaliation. Then he would sue on behalf of himself and the woman, claiming that he the person he hit was probably a Nazi and he was only trying to fight on behalf of the marginalized or something.
Yep.
I’m confused, should the not be in the title, you seem to be in support of his firing?
I believe it’s that Jack is searching for someone to come up with a reason that the professor should *not* be fired, as that seems to be a pretty tall task in this situation.
This article has made the rounds. But I don’t see why the central premise is so outrageous. It isn’t saying go out and kill people. And it doesn’t say let white people die. It specifically says “bigots” and those that seek to oppress. But there is never any duty to rescue (except under narrow circumstances), and even less duty to rescue someone who actively wants to harm you.
It’s a far milder variation of the “kill Hitler as a baby” scenario. Only instead, you have an adult Hitler drowning offshore. Do you jump in, battling waves and riptides to save a man who will go on to do his utmost to kill millions of innocent people, or do you just…let him die?
What!? No “duty to rescue” by a firefighter or EMT when they are not putting their lives in danger?
Dude, following that line of reasoning you probably think Yanez did nothing wrong when shooting Castile. After all he had a gun so he was probably a terrorist or drug kingpin in the making.
I did say, “except in narrow circumstances.” And in the original article itself, the author alluded to the same. Rescue personnel of course have the duty to rescue, a duty that they themselves volunteered for. Ordinary citizens do not usually have this duty (except…and but….).
Sorry, deery, but you’re wrong about this one.
One of the first lines of the article is this:
Officer Griner was simply going above and beyond in her job, specifically; saving lives as she imagines it is her job to do. My complaint is not with her.
In other words, saving Scalise wasn’t *really* Griner’s job. She just “imagines” it was, and was “going above and beyond” by saving a bigot.
Then, she says:
They, these white/cisgender/heterosexuals, have created entire systems, philosophies, and values in which goodness, peace, and benevolence are virtues — but only, always, in other people. In themselves, though, it is only ever pretense. They subvert, undermine, corrupt, and desecrate the virtues they extol by matter of course, by the very nature of what they are, never had any intention, actually, of living up to them, putting themselves at a distinct strategical advantage over us who hold onto these constructions as though we made them ourselves.
This is not just a condemnation of “bigots,” as she dishonestly asserts at the beginning of her article. This is a statement about all privileged people. “They” vs. “us.” And “they” (which here includes you and me) are characterized as morally bankrupt and dishonest. This is bigotry. It may be “punching up,” it may lack power + privilege, it may have no ability to oppress us, but it is still bigotry.
The remainder of the article clearly states that not only do minorities not have a duty to save bigots, but that they should make the choice to let them die, and that this is the only moral choice. That’s in the freaking title, for god’s sake. Your assertion that the article merely says people do not have a duty to rescue is completely wrong, as is your assertion that the writer is not applying that to rescue personnel; since I know you are an honest person, I’m going to attribute your reading to confirmation bias and lack of comprehension rather than intentional spin.
I know we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, but Im curious: Why don’t words, designed to inspire action (or lack of it), that could easily (if taken seriously) lead to harm to you, or even death, not have the ability to oppress you?
Going by the dictionary.com definition of oppress: “to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power”….
…Do you believe that Ariel Castro did not oppress those 3 women that he kept bound, against their will (“burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints”), forcing them into sex against their will, b/c they had no power to resist him (“subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power”), simply because he was not a white man, and thus lack the 1 kind of power that ever seems to matter?
Could President Obama, at one time THE most powerful human in the world, still lack the ability to oppress any other human on the planet, simply because he wasn’t a white male?
Individuals can certainly oppress other individuals, regardless of social power. And yes, any president can oppress any group of citizens, as they have immense social power regardless of their race.
So yes, if the words in that article led someone to condone violence against me, that could be considered oppression. I just find it very unlikely that that’s going to happen.
Intersectionality CB. I know it’s a dirty word, but it applies here.
I do note, and find it interesting that everyone has taken it this article as an anti-white screed, when he specifies “bigots.” Anyplace the author talks about whiteness, he also talks about systems of heterosexual/cisgender oppression as well(among others), but so far everyone is pretty mum about that.
Help me understand what intersectionality means, in the context of whether Ariel Catro or Obama can/cannot oppress. Or, whether or not Chris can be oppressed.
It means that I’m Hispanic and thus opressed by deery and Chris, thus automatically I’m right and they’re wrong.
…No, it means a black president like Obama could still be oppressive, since he has immense social power.
Intersectionality means that oppression and privilege have multiple vectors; one can be privileged in one way and disadvantaged in another. Obama doesn’t have white privilege, but he certainly has a great degree of class privilege.
I’m not sure how intersectionality applies to Castro, though. (Though of course, Castro had male privilege, that’s not what made his abuse of those women oppressive.)
And to be sincere, thats where my understanding of privilege/oppression loses steam. Because no one is *just* a white male, with all other avenues of intersectionality closed off. Some white males have the privilege of good parenting, strong upbringing, or money, and none of those things are exclusive to white people. And some white males, have none of that. And while I get that a higher percentage of whites have access to money than minorities, it’s still not exclusive, not even close.
So, a white male with none of those other privileges is much more likely to end up on a street corner panhandling, than a black woman with all, or even some of those privileges. (I’d argue, by virtue of being a woman, even having none of those privileges still makes her less likely to be panhandling. I drive the streets of Baltimore daily. The next time I see a black woman reduced to panhandling will be the first. But I digress) But, too often, everything is boiled to “if you’re white and male, you automatically have an indisputable leg up, as if none of these other avenues exist. EVERYONE has these other avenues. And many of these avenues contribute to a persons privileged/oppressed outcome, as much as race does.
Why is it considered “white” privilege that, on average, blacks are sentenced longer for similar crimes (5-10% according to the Bureau of Justice), but not “women” privilege that men’s sentences are 63% longer (according to U of Michigan Law School). And if it is woman’s privilege, and if we can agree that the scale is not always, 100% tipped in favor of men (as if thats the only example…), then why can’t we acknowledge that certain privileges (being white), really are only as strong as the combination of other privileges and oppressions that are backing it up? Being a white male, alone, is not enough to grant you immunity from a street corner. So, why, amongst a group of seemingly intelligent people (liberals), is the argument always boiled down to the simplistic, divisive “white male privilege”? If white males are sentenced longer for crimes that females of any color are, for the same crime, why is it insisted that white male privilege is inescapable? These aren’t exceptions that prove the rule; these are exceptions that prove the simplistic rule is bull shit.
The reason I treat liberal buzz-words with derisiveness, is because I have eyes. I see the white men, on street corners, that I am handing food out to, as I wait for the light to change. These white men total more that all the black men, black women, white women, Asian men, Asian women, Hispanic men, and so on, that I encounter, combined…in a city where blacks outnumber whites 2 to 1. My eyes tell me that their privilege meant nothing when faced against the lack of a stable home life, lack of adequate parenting, lack of funds, lack of job assistance, lack of education, etc. Their privilege means nothing as they are put in a position to have to accept assistance from a run-of-the-mill, middle income, black man, whose stable upbringing, access to middle class funds (growing up), and access to education undid the effects of any supposed oppression.
It’s easy for a member of a political ideology to look at the opposition, and think them stupid, or racist, or snowflake. This is lazy, and ignorant. But at the heart of why I refuse to align with liberal ideology is exactly what I describe above: The world I observe with my eyes does not match the narrative I hear from the left. And while I realize that there is a great big diverse world out there, beyond my field of vision, every time I see a complex argument boiled down to “while male=privilege; black male=oppressed”, it drives me further and further from ever viewing the world the way you do.
I dont deny that privilege exists; years ago, I was hired to be a preschool director within a month of a white woman (who would later go on to become a friend) at a neighboring preschool within the same company (rhymes with CinderCare). Years later, we discussed our salaries, and it turned out that I made about $2k more than her when we were hired. So, while my male privilege “helped” me, her white privilege didn’t help her. Im also very confident, that had she been a white male, I still would have made more, as a black male with significant enough experience to be a director at a preschool is like finding a white whale, and you pay whatever it takes to get him to work for you. But there were many other avenues in play: we both shared a female boss, who likely viewed female directors as a dime a dozen; I had a masters degree and she didn’t; My center had been more successful previously, so I had higher expectations heaped on me; I was more of a loose cannon who didnt toe the corporate line, and my peer easily capitulated when asked to do something she didnt want to; etc. My point is, these other avenues, that can favor anyone, of any race or gender (especially, depending on context) are way to often ignored, b/c it’s just easier to trash the dominant group and have everyone else who’s like-minded simply follow suit.
And to be sincere, thats where my understanding of privilege/oppression loses steam. Because no one is *just* a white male, with all other avenues of intersectionality closed off. Some white males have the privilege of good parenting, strong upbringing, or money, and none of those things are exclusive to white people. And some white males, have none of that. And while I get that a higher percentage of whites have access to money than minorities, it’s still not exclusive, not even close.
Yes. So basically you agree with the concept of intersectionality then. Our discussion last time got bogged down right around this juncture. It is entirely possible to be a white male, and still not be privileged in some areas. It is entirely possible to lack privilege in one area, but exercise strong privileges in another.
However, often from what I’ve observed, is that people often will try to use their lack of privilege in one area to “cover” them exercising privilege in another area, I.e. “I don’t have white privilege, I’m gay!”, etc.
It’s possible to have some advantages and not others. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe “intersectionality” is an overly fancy word for that concept, but that’s really all it means.
Ahhhh, I forgot! Thanks for the reminder! 😉
We had a whole discussion on this several weeks ago, essentially, once pressed for a clear definition of “intersectionality” it is discovered that it is a useless term describing something that can’t actually be actioned against outside of standard societal teachings like “respect your fellow man and do not disdain him for his station, for he, like you, is probably trying to the best he can with what he has”.
Intersectionality, when not pressed for a clear definition that might guide real action, turns out to be a big amorphous cudgel used to blame all manner of societal ills on white people, but vicariously on the American cultural system, which the Left insists, through strained logic are one in the same.
But in reality, all intersectionality can possible demonstrate is that ““the world is hostile in any number of important respects for ALL of us in different and unique ways …” (Kmele Foster)
Relevant discussion
Another Relevant discussion
My take on the discussion
I find the knee jerk reaction of assuming bigotry means “white people” interesting as well, likely for VERY different reasons.
Son of Baldwin is, as you can imagine from his nom de plume, a black homosexual male.
Officer Griner was simply going above and beyond in her job, specifically; saving lives as she imagines it is her job to do. My complaint is not with her.
Of course she was going above and beyond her duty, engaging in a firefight with a heavily armed gunman is something not even very many officers would do. Many would retreat to safe place and wait for reinforcements. That’s why she’s getting all the commendations she’s getting. He also takes care to say that he is not really talking about the Griner case specifically, but using it as a launching off pad to a general point.
This is not just a condemnation of “bigots,” as she dishonestly asserts at the beginning of her article. This is a statement about all privileged people. “They” vs. “us.” And “they” (which here includes you and me) are characterized as morally bankrupt and dishonest. This is bigotry. It may be “punching up,” it may lack power + privilege, it may have no ability to oppress us, but it is still bigotry.
Like he said at the beginning, “a hit dog will holler.” I read that statement you quoted in conjunction with his opening statement. Therefore ” [bigoted] white/cisgender/heterosexuals, have created entire systems, philosophies, and values in which goodness, peace, and benevolence are virtues — but only, always, in other people. In themselves, though, it is only ever pretense. They subvert, undermine, corrupt, and desecrate the virtues they extol by matter of course, by the very nature of what they are, never had any intention, actually, of living up to them, putting themselves at a distinct strategical advantage over us who hold onto these constructions as though we made them ourselves.” If you never had intentions of demanding people live up to standards you yourself do not do not hold people in your category to uphold, as a strategic advantage, then why feel bothered? Do you think all whites/cisgender/heterosexuals work in the manner he describes?
If you choose not to rescue someone, you are choosing to let them die. The “let them die” construction is a bombastic, attention-getting way of saying the same thing.
Son of Baldwin is, as you can imagine from his nom de plume, a black homosexual male.
Whoops. “He.”
Of course she was going above and beyond her duty, engaging in a firefight with a heavily armed gunman is something not even very many officers would do. Many would retreat to safe place and wait for reinforcements. That’s why she’s getting all the commendations she’s getting. He also takes care to say that he is not really talking about the Griner case specifically, but using it as a launching off pad to a general point.
The word “imagines” is belittling, deery, and implies that she should not have saved Scalise. As does the rest of the article.
Like he said at the beginning, “a hit dog will holler.” I read that statement you quoted in conjunction with his opening statement. Therefore ” [bigoted] white/cisgender/heterosexuals, have created entire systems, philosophies, and values in which goodness, peace, and benevolence are virtues — but only, always, in other people. In themselves, though, it is only ever pretense. They subvert, undermine, corrupt, and desecrate the virtues they extol by matter of course, by the very nature of what they are, never had any intention, actually, of living up to them, putting themselves at a distinct strategical advantage over us who hold onto these constructions as though we made them ourselves.” If you never had intentions of demanding people live up to standards you yourself do not do not hold people in your category to uphold, as a strategic advantage, then why feel bothered? Do you think all whites/cisgender/heterosexuals work in the manner he describes?
Of course not.
But if I start an article by saying “The following only applies to terrorists,” and then spend the rest of the article saying things like “Muslims have terrorized the globe,” would you really believe that I am only talking about terrorists, and that my words are not bigoted against all Muslims?
I don’t think you would. You would recognize my comments as bigotry.
If you choose not to rescue someone, you are choosing to let them die. The “let them die” construction is a bombastic, attention-getting way of saying the same thing.
And she is saying, at best, that choosing not to rescue bigots is the morally right choice, and choosing to rescue them is the wrong one.
How are you OK with this?
But if I start an article by saying “The following only applies to terrorists,” and then spend tht rest of the article saying things like “Muslims have terrorized the globe,” would you really believe that I am only talking about terrorists, and that my words are not bigoted against all Muslims?
But that is not what he is saying. Would you take offense to an article which examined Islam, and the way modern-day terrorists have exploited the Islamic religion further their goals.
And further, would you take such offense to an article which said, “hey, if you see a known terrorist in trouble, even if you know he’s probably disarmed, let’s say he’s choking on a piece of cake, don’t bother leaping in there to save him. Your actions might cause more harm to yourself and others, ultimately “? Because it seems that the Son of Baldwin sees virulent bigots in much that same framework as known terrorists. It is a valid moral quandary to me. Do you try to prevent harm now, knowing you may cause much greater harm to yourself and others in the future, or do you choose not to act?
Im just gonna parrot what Tyberius A said, down thread: Why are you comparing bigots (it is possible to be intolerant of other, and no one ever knowing), to terrorist (it is not possible to be a terrorist, and not harm others)? A disarmed terrorist, is still a criminal, as a terrorist has to engage in terrorist activity to be a terrorist. Simply thinking about terrorist activities does not make one a terrorist; thinking bigoted thoughts does make one a bigot, but obviously is not illegal.
The author also clearly states “This essay is in the context of bigotry and is speaking about bigots.” Not virulent bigots. And just because the author sees bigots as one in the same with terrorists, doesn’t make the association valid.
I should clarify, it is not possible to be a terrorist, and not be committing a crime. One can engage in terrorist activity, and still have the end result be that no one is harmed.
Well, if you are somehow a “secret bigot”, no one ever knowing, then it stands to reason you would not be one of the ones that someone would stand aside and “let die.” I think it does take someone knowing of the bigotry in question.
Given the author uses Steve Scalise as a jumping off point, and gives no other examples of what kind of bigots he is talking about, it’s fair to assume he sees Scalise as the type of person whom we should let die.
Scalise has some awful positions, some of which negatively impact the lives of LGBT people. Do you think that makes him the equivalent of a terrorist, and that if we see him dying, it is morally wrong to help him?
Scalise has some awful positions, some of which negatively impact the lives of LGBT people. Do you think that makes him the equivalent of a terrorist, and that if we see him dying, it is morally wrong to help him?
I reread the article just to make sure. But the author doesn’t suggest that it would be morally wrong to help Scalise, just dumb. Especially if you are doing it out of some motivation that by showing “how virtuous you are ” that this will somehow change the hearts and minds of people like Scalise. Because the chances are negligible that it will.
I reread the article just to make sure. But the author doesn’t suggest that it would be morally wrong to help Scalise, just dumb.
That’s just as bad.
Especially if you are doing it out of some motivation that by showing “how virtuous you are ” that this will somehow change the hearts and minds of people like Scalise. Because the chances are negligible that it will.
Why not do it just because…I don’t know…it’s the right thing to do? I highly doubt the officer thought about Scalise’s political positions when she saved his life. She just did it, because it was the right thing to do.
If someone sees someone in danger, and they really take the time to consider “Wait, is this person a bigot? If I save him, will that make my side look good, or will it have no effect? Will that person continue doing bigoted things?” then that person is an asshole who is poisoned by ideology. And by the time they sort through their imaginary moral quandary, that person will probably be dead.
If you can find me 1 example, in all of human history, where someone placed in a life or death, every-second-is-of-the-utmost-importance situation, who later admitted that they considered how virtuous they’d look, with the intention of swaying the opinion of the person they’d try to save, I will owe you a steak dinner.
Plus, it’s not “dumb” that she saved his life. All life has inherent value, and it. is. her. job. to. defend. his. life. Is it dumb if you vote for someone, even when that candidate holds several positions that you oppose, b/c the totality of their personhood is still more positive than negative? Thats essentially why I voted for O in 2012. Was I wrong to do so?
We’ve gone over this repeatedly. Stipulated. Griner had both the duty and the obligation to save Scalise’s life. An ordinary citizen does not.
But if I start an article by saying “The following only applies to terrorists,” and then spend tht rest of the article saying things like “Muslims have terrorized the globe,” would you really believe that I am only talking about terrorists, and that my words are not bigoted against all Muslims?
But that is not what he is saying.
That’s exactly how he frames it, deery!
Would you take offense to an article which examined Islam, and the way modern-day terrorists have exploited the Islamic religion further their goals.
If it included multiple sentences that conflated Muslims with terrorists, in the same way this article includes multiple sentences that conflate white/cis/hetero people with bigots? Yes.
“Of course she was going above and beyond her duty, engaging in a firefight with a heavily armed gunman is something not even very many officers would do. Many would retreat to safe place and wait for reinforcements.”
Why do you believe that “many” would retreat? From the Wikipedia article (and also verified many other places): “Three Capitol Police were present at the practice to protect Scalise,[19] who, due to his House leadership position, has a full-time security detail assigned to protect him.[20] They were posted behind the first-base dugout on that day.”
They began in a place of (relative) safety. Their assigned role, their duty, was to protect Scalise, who was exposed at the time of the shooting. Once the shooting began, Officer Griner (heroically) did what she was supposed to do…her assigned duty. Would you argue that the Secret Service should wait, if the President comes under fire and is exposed, for reinforcements*? The expectations are relatively the same, in that regard.
*-Leaving aside who the current president is…
They began in a place of (relative) safety. Their assigned role, their duty, was to protect Scalise, who was exposed at the time of the shooting. Once the shooting began, Officer Griner (heroically) did what she was supposed to do…her assigned duty?
I think she was Capital Police, not Secret Service, just as a slight correction. But it’s difficult to reconcile “heroic” with “just doing her duty.” If anyone would have done it, it’s probably not all that as heroic as claimed, correct.
She was Capitol Police (rather that Secret Service), but that doesn’t mean her role in protecting Scalise was significantly different.
And, no ones claiming “anyone” would do it. The claim is that “anyone properly trained, who was assigned to, and accepted, that detail *should* do it, which in no way reduces the bravery involved in risking ones life, for another”
deery,
There is a difference between a hypothetical situation that could never take place and advocating actions that could take place. In 2017, Hitler cannot be killed as a baby. That is an ethical question based on a theory that could never be proven (i.e. without Hitler there would have never been a Jewish Holocaust). Advocating that people not act, whether or not they are legally bound to act, is an act of devaluing human life based on the color of ones’s skin color and that is morally wrong. I am not legally bound to feed the homeless, but to do so advances society by caring for the vulnerable and those that temporarily cannot help themselves. If someone were to advocate that all homeless people should be left to starve to death, that would be an immoral position because they are advocating the demise of those who are indeed living as opposed to a historical figure long dead.
Having said that, your very use of the Hitler hypothesis is invalid because there is no comparison between a bigot who has possibly never hurt a fly, but is warped in his/her view of race relations and a megalomaniac that facilitated the mass genocide of a race of people. And therein lies the problem with using Hitler as some type of academic exercise where the horror of what he did and stood for is reduced to an intellectual game. Killing and the needless loss of life is not a game. Devaluing any human being’s life is not fodder for sarcastic, flippant or casual conversation. Because WWII or the holocaust did not start with the systematic murder of six million Jews. It stared with a sick mind and his writings that too many at the time dismissed merely as a joke and the ravings of a lunatic.
I hope is that this poor excuse for a college professor will learn that one day. My hope is that with the threats on him and his family he might now realize irresponsible foolish words and rants have consequences. If so, he has learned a very valuable lesson very cheaply.
Times like this, I wish this site had a “like button”, for posts like this…
You just pressed the “like” button, Chris. Only difference is, you took more time, effort and deliberation to do it, so it meant that much more.
Advocating that people not act, whether or not they are legally bound to act, is an act of devaluing human life based on the color of ones’s skin color and that is morally wrong.
Except he does not advocate doing so based on the color of one’s skin, no more than he’s urging based on sexual orientation or gender identification. He’s saying, if someone has demonstrated that they hold ill intent towards you, and others who might be in your category, it is beyond foolish to go out of your way to rescue them. You are probably doing more harm than good. You are valuing the bigot’s life over your own. Which shows be a relatively uncontroversial position.
Having said that, your very use of the Hitler hypothesis is invalid because there is no comparison between a bigot who has possibly never hurt a fly, but is warped in his/her view of race relations and a megalomaniac that facilitated the mass genocide of a race of people. And therein lies the problem with using Hitler as some type of academic exercise where the horror of what he did and stood for is reduced to an intellectual game. Killing and the needless loss of life is not a game. Devaluing any human being’s life is not fodder for sarcastic, flippant or casual conversation. Because WWII or the holocaust did not start with the systematic murder of six million Jews. It started with a sick mind and his writings that too many at the time dismissed merely as a joke and the ravings of a lunatic.
Oh, you mean the Holocaust started with …bigotry? And yet how could you not possibly see that you and the author are in complete agreement? You are right, holocausts do not start out fully sprung. They begin in the hearts and minds of bigots. And why should anyone offer bigots any assistance whatsoever?
Except he does not advocate doing so based on the color of one’s skin, no more than he’s urging based on sexual orientation or gender identification.
Read the article again. He conflates “white/cis/hetero” people with bigots multiple times.
He’s saying, if someone has demonstrated that they hold ill intent towards you, and others who might be in your category, it is beyond foolish to go out of your way to rescue them. You are probably doing more harm than good. You are valuing the bigot’s life over your own. Which shows be a relatively uncontroversial position.
The only example of a bigot whom we should not save given was Steve Scalise. Do you really believe it should be “uncontroversial” that we should save someone like him if we can?
*should not save
Let’s see. If I’m a black person, just walking by, not a cop. And I know that Scalise has called himself “David Duke lite”, is a unabashed, but polite, white supremacist, and not only that, he is basically in charge of writing the laws which could radically affect my life, would I rush in there to help save his life, just so he could recover and go on to do more harm to my community? Probably not. Almost certainly not.
Read the article again. He conflates “white/cis/hetero” people with bigots multiple time.
When he uses the construction ““white/cis/heterosexual people” it’s usually in the article as “white/cis/hetero people who practice bigotry.”
No, it isn’t.
“They, these white/cisgender/heterosexuals, have created entire systems, philosophies, and values in which goodness, peace, and benevolence are virtues — but only, always, in other people.”
This isn’t saying “white/cis/hetero people who practice bigotry” have done these things. It’s saying “white/cis/hetero people” have done these things.
Well, in this particular sentence, that makes sense. At least in the USA, people who are not white/cisgender/heterosexual have had very little chance to create entire systems, philosophies, and values that are in turn imposed upon those who are white/cis/heterosexual.
But when talking about bigotry, he does distinguish between those who practice bigotry and those who don’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan
Thats…pretty messed up. Easy for me to say, b/c Im not in the heat of the moment, but Im confident that 99 times out of 100 I would, and not think twice about it. The only exceptions I can image, is if it clearly was a trap, or if the victim was actively resisting being saved and causing me harm.
Also, I googled “Scalise david duke lite”. I got back 8 results, and none of them imply that he has called himself that; rather, he was labeled that by whomever was writing what I was reading. Where are you getting the “has called himself” from?
I think the term was, “David Duke, without the baggage.”
To address your first point, he does advocate based on the color of skin because if he did not it would not be apparent from the article that he was only speaking about “white” bigots and “whites” that would harm. Be that as it may, your point that “someone has demonstrated that they hold ill intent towards you, and others who might be in your category, it is beyond foolish to go out of your way to rescue them…” is worth discussing further because while this argument is often applied to race it transcends race relations.
One of the reasons we know that treating others as badly as we are treated does nothing to advance society because it has failed every time the tactic was employed. The space (and my time) is too limited here to cite every instance in human history where violence against one’s neighbor and its retaliation only succeeded in greater violence being perpetrated. As Dr. King once observed, “an eye for an eye will eventually leave the whole world blind.” It has to stop and we have to find a better way of dealing with each other than advocating for hurting someone else in the way I feel I’ve been hurt.
To answer your question, “And why should anyone offer bigots any assistance whatsoever?” Because they are human beings and we are human beings and to be human means that we don’t act like animals. There is a higher consciousness and responsibility to being human in that we don’t react without forethought of the consequences of our actions. Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr. King all understood that to retaliate for a wrong that was done against you places that person in an inferior moral position, but to choosing not to react and to love those who hate places that person not only in a superior position of control, but also advances society by eliminating the effects of that hatred.
There are people in this world who choose to hate because they thought no one cared. I know because I’ve met them. I’ve talked with them. I’ve worked with them. And the only thing that cause them to question previously held bigoted beliefs is that they saw someone who did care who didn’t have to. I’m not saying that this is the way every situation would turn out. Life is not a fairy-tale. What I’m saying is that if we, who know and have the ability to extend ourselves to our fellow human beings, should do so regardless of their hatred because often that is the only kindness that person may ever have known.
We all will die… its a mathematical certainty. How one chooses to live is what will make the difference in his/or her life and those whose lives they touch through the course of human history.
You seem to think the author is advocating violence. He is not. Simply…inaction. Passivity. “Choosing not to react”, even. But no calls for uprisings that I can see.
Choosing not to act is still a choice, deery. If you see someone getting murdered, and you do nothing, you have made a choice to let violence happen to that person. It does not matter one iota who that person is. Either you care about people’s rights to life, or you do not. “Let Them Fucking Die” is an unethical stance, and I can’t believe you’re endorsing it.
You are not making a valid moral distinction. What many would term the “sin of omission” speaks specifically to the idea that somehow passivity or inaction is a morally justifiable choice when one has the ability to act to save a life, but it is not. ALL life is precious… even the life of a bigot. Simply because you may have harassed me, my family of friends, or I was not be able to persuade you to see my point of view, doesn’t mean I should walk past you on the street while you were having a heart attack. The preservation of your life transcends those things. You don’t have to be a “good” person to deserve to live! And who am I to make that decision??? Should we all start playing God because you don’t agree with my politics? Where does it end? Today its bigots, tomorrow its all cops and next week it will be democrats or republicans!
To even advocate for passivity in the face of danger or a potential loss of life is immoral because of the value of life is greater than the cost to one who could save it. Ultimately, as i often say, it all depends on what type of society we want to have. But I would rather put aside my differences of opinion, save your life, and come back to debate with you alive. Its much more fun, productive and you never know… may lead to a better understanding of each other.
No, all life isn’t precious. Otherwise we would not have self defense laws, or the death penalty. We would have mandatory organ donation. We let people decide not to take action by donating their organs, even if a lot of innocent lives die needlessly because of that inaction.
Frankly, I do fail to see the kerfuffle. Don’t save people who are trying to cause you harm. As standard advice, it’s pretty solid. From what I gather, people here are advocating that people should be rushing out to save those they know who want to harm them. What kind of craziness is that?
The fact of the matter that while the life of the prisoner is valuable, the law has determined that the actions of person and threat to society as a whole dictates forfeiture of that life by means of due process. This argument about the value of life of people on death row is old, has nothing to do with invalidating the value of human life and doesn’t apply in context here.
What we are discussing here is someone who is held to a high moral standard by the nature of their profession abdicated that responsibility by going on a foolish angry bigoted rant towards those who he deems unworthy of life. If that is not the height of irresponsibility and hatred I don’t know what is. Moreover, someone who does not have the temperance (synonym of self-abnegation, by the way) or the moral character to know that is wrong they should not hold said position of authority in higher education.
Well, it’s certainly not “all life”, now is it? At the point where you put people in categories as those worthy of life, and those not, it becomes less about “all life being precious “, and more about those deemed worthy of having life being precious. You deem bigots as a category of people whose lives one should go out of their way to save. Son of Baldwin does not. Your philosophies aren’t all that different, you are having a categorical argument.
Would anyone care if he was ranting about not saving the lives of those who advocate pedophila? Or terrorism? I think it’s fine if you want to save any life at all, no matter what, but it is hardly some universal societal concept.
Fascinating discussion, but ignoring the rather obvious point that the professions that save lives as a mission—medicine, law enforcement, fire— take the view that all lives are not only precious, but equally precious. Lawyers also do not view one kind of client more “worthy” of legal assistance than another. So does the Declaration and the Constitution. Your weird theory is essence makes every citizen an arbiter of life and death, based on perceived crimes, many of which aren’t crimes at all.
It’s a rationalization for bigotry.
Fascinating discussion, but ignoring the rather obvious point that the professions that save lives as a mission—medicine, law enforcement, fire— take the view that all lives are not only precious, but equally precious. Lawyers also do not view one kind of client more “worthy” of legal assistance than another. So does the Declaration and the Constitution. Your weird theory is essence makes every citizen an arbiter of life and death, based on perceived crimes, many of which aren’t crimes at all.
It’s a rationalization for bigotry.
? I don’t think we are disagreeing here. We’ve discussed upthread that there are certain categories of people who indeed have a duty to rescue, rescue personnel being among them.
Though I guess I disagree with your assertion that lawyers don’t discriminate among their clients as far as “worthy” legal assistance. Of course they do. I think ability to pay is chief among most lawyers preliminary criteria.
I don’t think Son of Baldwin is advocating for any more than the status quo, as it currently already exists. Don’t go out of your way to rescue people who want to harm you. Most people don’t even need to be advised to do that.
1. Ethically, lawyers are not supposed to base their professional duties according to ability to pay. Professionally, what matters is that someone needs legal help.
2. The point is that those values held by professionals are the exemplary ethical standards that all should strive for. You sound like you’ve never heard of the Golden Rule.
deery, do you favor the death penalty?
Don’t save people who are trying to cause you harm.
You need to give specific answers of what you are talking about here. Here, I’ll give you one.
You are invited to a private meeting with President Trump. He begins choking. You know the Heimlich maneuver, and no one else is around.
Do you help him?
I would, and I’d regard someone who chooses not to as not much different from a murderer, ethically speaking.
As standard advice, it’s pretty solid. From what I gather, people here are advocating that people should be rushing out to save those they know who want to harm them. What kind of craziness is that?
That’s a complete strawman. We’re not talking about “rushing out,” we’re talking about not standing by when someone is in danger.
In one of the most chilling scenes in drama, Lillian Hellman’s “The Little Foxes” features a ruthless anti-heroine whose weak husband suffers a heart attack as she holds the nitroglycerine pills that might save his life. She just stares coldly at him as he dies, begging for his pills.
deery, do you favor the death penalty?
In principle, no. In practice, there are plenty of people I wouldn’t protest too hard if they showed up dead.
Don’t save people who are trying to cause you harm.
You need to give specific answers of what you are talking about here. Here, I’ll give you one.
You are invited to a private meeting with President Trump. He begins choking. You know the Heimlich maneuver, and no one else is around.
Do you help him?
To save myself the potential of an awkward visit from the Secret Service, lets change your example of Trump into Kim Jong Un. If the North Korean leader was choking in front of me, would I try to save him? Probably not, everything else being equal. If that makes me a murderer in your eyes, so be it. Saving him so that he can unleash more death upon others seems the far more unethical and irresponsible choice.
As standard advice, it’s pretty solid. From what I gather, people here are advocating that people should be rushing out to save those they know who want to harm them. What kind of craziness is that?
That’s a complete strawman. We’re not talking about “rushing out,” we’re talking about not standing by when someone is in danger.
Oh, not just “someone “, but someone who is wishing you harm.
Though your responses (and others) reveal a latent thought. It seems that most people do in fact think there is an ethical duty to rescue, anyone and everyone, whenever possible, despite people stating outright that this ethical duty does not exist. Otherwise what the author said should be relatively uncontroversial. If a person cannot “just stand around” without being deemed a murderer in your eyes, then you obviously feel that people have an ethical duty to act when unconnected people are in trouble.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you… For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?”
This is what you are hearing, deery. This is also the Golden Rule.
In one of the most chilling scenes in drama, Lillian Hellman’s “The Little Foxes” features a ruthless anti-heroine whose weak husband suffers a heart attack as she holds the nitroglycerine pills that might save his life. She just stares coldly at him as he dies, begging for his pills.
Ha! I was thinking of that very self-same scene. Though I do believe that spouses, like rescue personnel, have the self-imposed duty to rescue. So it is just a little different.
Spouses have no more ethical duty than any human being who has it within their power to prevent a death. Your position is untenable. So if the FedEx man stood by and let him die because he was a Republican, that would be different to you?
Deery, why do your continue to use that phrase, “wishing you harm”, as if it’s relevant. Being a bigot, on its own, does not mean you wish “harm” on another.
Also, the heart attack/withholding nitroglycerine pills also played out in a scene from Season 3 of 24. Creepy as hell.
Spouses have no more ethical duty than any human being who has it within their power to prevent a death. Your position is untenable. So if the FedEx mas stood by and let him die because he was a Republican, that would be different to you?
I would argue, all other things being equal, spouses have an ethical duty of rescue that strangers do not have. That is mostly through voluntary contract.
But as I noted above, despite protestations to the contrary, people actually do believe there is an ethical duty to rescue. Which is fine, but I do like to clarify exactly where the points of disagreement are.
You ducked my question.
I didn’t understand your question. “FedEx mas”? But overall there I don’t think there is an affirmative duty to rescue between strangers. It’s usually nice to do, but up to the level of obligation?-no. So, if someone didn’t want to rescue someone else, for whatever reason, they don’t have to. Sometimes I might think their reason is stupid, but that, in and of itself, does not make it unethical.
Oops. “Man.” Huh. The n is nowhere near the s.
Stunning answer. You have the means to easily save a life at hand, but doing so would just be “nice,” while just letting someone die is an acceptable course. Drink your bottle of water as someone is dying in from of you from thirst. Being able to pull a stranger out of the way of a bus, but deciding that it’s too much trouble, so you let him get crushed. Nice if you save someone, but OK if you don’t.
Who out there agrees with this, and how did you get this way? You didn’t learn it here, that’s for sure.
Deery, chaning Trump to Kim Jong-un completely changes the equation. Un is a repressive dictator; I can think of good reasons to not only let him die, but to actively have him killed.
Trump seems much closer to the type of bigot the author of that piece is talking about, and is thus much more relevant to my question. I think you should answer it.
deery,
Because “rushing out to save those they know who want to harm them..” is not a certainty in the real world in which such advice is being given. In the hypothetical, you make the knowledge of harm a certainty, but again, what Williams is advocating is NOT a hypothetical. He is using a real life situation to advocate that the politician (and people like him) should not receive help if in danger and be left for dead. And the reason? Because they “presumably” would do minorities harm [maybe if they had the chance]. But such a position is not FACTUAL and requires subscribers to this evil to make a judgment on the fate of another based upon how one may view them, which may or may not be accurate! Live or die… based on how I choose to view you in the moment??? Life is worth more than how I may see you. That’s the kerfuffle!
Self defense is a bad example. Just because, on the scale, I value my life more than yours, doesn’t mean yours isn’t precious. It just means, the rules as you’ve established, holds that one person MUST die, and I value the preciousness of my life more than the preciousness of yours.
The criminal who attacks me has lowered the value of his life by his conscious decision. Any harm I inflict defending myself is on his head, even if he dies.
This is why self defense is an affirmative defense in any sane jurisdiction.
The first statement refers to people on this forum. And what they have indicated.
The second refers to the broader category of people in the USA.
Quite frankly, if anyone disagrees with me, I’m gonna call “bullshit.” It might be the nice thing to say out loud, but in practice, at least in the USA, we don’t believe there is an ethical duty to rescue.
How do feel about mandatory organ donation, after the person is already dead? You are dead after all, it is literally the least you could do. Or having everyone line up at work to donate blood? It is usually great if someone wants to expend the effort to save someone else. But are they obliged to? No. That’s far too totalitarian for me. Nor does it account for the very real possibility that some people out there simply don’t deserve saving, or that saving a particular person very well could result in suffering for many more people, as the article posits. Sometimes, based on utilitarian grounds, some people shouldn’t be saved. If Kim Jong Un started choking in front of you, do you save him?
At 10:19 am, you said: “people actually do believe there is an ethical duty to rescue. Which is fine…”
and at 11:49 am, you said: “in the USA, we don’t believe there is an ethical duty to rescue.”
How are these 2 positions logically consistent? What changed over the course of 90 min?
The first statement refers to people on this forum. And what they have indicated.
The second refers to the broader category of people in the USA.
“If Kim Jong Un started choking in front of you, do you save him?”
Yes. How do you know that a single selfless act of kindness might produce in his life, or in others? An example is a powerful thing, deery. Societies have changed based on an example (Rosa Parks, for one.)
The other side you miss is that this is not about who Kim Jong Un is, it is about who I am.
Pretty sure that Inalienable Rights only apply to “good” people.
Consider his response to a comment “It would be okay if a BLACK cis or trans woman asked me this question.
And the answer to HER question would be a resounding, unapologetic YES.
“Yes, black woman. If you chose to sit by and let any man or white woman die, you would be well within your moral rights given how both of these demographics have perpetually treated you and perpetually witnessed your oppression and death and either did nothing or caused it to begin with.”
”
The author, despite adding a later statement that it only applies to bigots, clearly does think all white men deserve to die. He does NOT suggest that everyone has a moral right not to assist, which I would agree with, but rather that a history of oppression by members of one group justify collective punishment.
Wouldn’t “any man” include black men, Asian men, Hispanic men, etc? Including himself? I think he is reaffirming his premise that if you have someone who is trying to oppress you, you owe m no special duty of rescue. And that would even include people who are members of categories that he himself belongs to.
Again, he is not just saying “you owe no special duty of rescue.” He’s saying that rescuing such a person is wrong.
Where does he say that? I see where he says it’s stupid, it will not change the bigots outlook, but I don’t see where he says it’s wrong.
“Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous.”
What’s the opposite of virtuous? Unethical, wicked, and wrong are a few antonyms. Therefore, he is saying saving the lives of bigots is wrong. Saving Scalise was wrong, according to the author.
Let. Them. Fucking. Die.
And smile a bit when you do.
For you have done the universe a great service.
Ashes to ashes.
Dust to bigots.
So not only should you not save them, you should be happy when they die and by not saving them, you have done the ethical thing.
Again, the author is not just saying people do not have a duty to save bigots.
He is saying people have a duty to not save them.
Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous.”
As that sentence is constructed, I agree with it. Saving the life of someone who is trying to kill you is not a virtuous act. It is self-abnegation to the extreme. Unless self-defense has become outlawed why, out all the sentences, is that the one that offends you? Note that he does not limit that to bigots, it’s a general principle of his.
You are missing the point… the operative word here is “would,” which means that it is asking the person subscribing to this ideology to make a JUDGEMENT about something that has not happened! Said another way, “if a person of a particular persuasion appears to mean you no good, do not save them (i.e. let them die).” The sentiment and attitude come through stronger than the words themselves.
Quite frankly your use of the term “self-abnegation” to somehow be mutually exclusive from virtue when they are no shows a fundamental lack of understanding of both terms.
Or to put it the way he has framed it, “if someone has caused you to believe that they mean you harm, don’t go out of your way to save them. You have been brainwashed to believe that this is a virtuous act, but it is dumb.” That makes complete
Sense. Self-abnegation is not mutually exclusive to virtue. Extreme self-abnegation certainly can be.
Why are you defending someone who equates bigotry with “someone who is trying to kill you”?
Yes, saving someone who is trying to kill you is morally ambiguous. But, how is that related to the Scalise sooting, in any sense? Why would he accept, as part of his security detail, someone that he hates to the extent that he would want her dead?
Exactly, Chris.
The author gives zero examples of the type of bigot he thinks worthy of letting die, while at the same time, in a slight and unconvincing bow to political correctness, dancing around whether or not Scalise actually fits the bill of someone who deserves to die.
So it isn’t just unethical and ugly, it’s badly written.
“it will not change the bigots outlook”
Perhaps not, but that is not a certainty. People are not bigots by birth. They are taught their intolerance and hate. You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught
Presenting them with examples that contradict what they have been taught may lead to them questioning those beliefs. To say that nothing will change the bigot’s outlook is to deny that people have the capacity to learn from their experiences. I doubt there is any adult who can look back on their life and fail to find at least one example of a belief they held at one time which they would now consider to be bigoted.
He claims it is right to let ANY man or white woman to die, regardless of whether they are individually bigots and trying to impress. My sole point is that claims that he is only antagonistic to individual bigots is nonsense.
Functionally zero of these people you hate so much are actual bigots.
There are no neo-nazis or white-supremacists running around in Congress or nearly anywhere else outside of your fevered imagination.
The article is literally a bigot projecting his hatred and lack of human decency onto the people he hates so that he can justify hating them. Both it and your defense of it are beyond the pale.
The only reason I can plausibly give is if this professor has tenure. And I have a hard time even making the case, since you have to balance the competing principles of getting rid of such a toxic member of faculty against the tradition of academic freedom which is given a very broad interpretation.
I know, it’s not a good reason, but that’s the best case I can make.
The thing thats the most frustrating about this, is “self identified whites daily violence directed at….”. Not only does it assume monolithic thought amongst all whites, and all non-whites, and not only is it incredibly divisive, but it also, paternalistically, treats non-whites like f****** children. He (and many others) assume that either a) non-whites aren’t capable of hatred/violence that rivals hatred/violence that whites produce; b) whites are impervious to hatred/violence from non-whites; or c) non-whites are to have lowered expected standards of conduct, so even if we can produce hated/violence on the scale of whites, who cares? No need to take us seriously, after all.
The comedian Terrance Williams frequently posts on his Twitter account hate-filled and threatening tweets from other blacks (twitter.com/w_terrence/status/877386095536873472?s=09). Presumably, Mr. Williams fits in the category of “racially oppressed”. So are the threats directed at him less threatening/newsworthy/legitimate, simply because they come from fellow blacks? Is there anyone on the planet who cannot see how insanely patronizing and racist such a mindset is? If I threaten someone, it’s not nearly as serious as if my white, elderly, neighbor makes the exact same threat? “There there CB, you go ahead and make all the threats your little heart desires…we know it’s justified, and you’re just blowing off steam.”
I’ve said it before, anyone who fails to understand that non-whites can be every bit as great, successful, wonderful, AND every bit as terrible, hate-filled, and awful as any white person can be, is simply engaging in despicable soft bigotry. Despicable, b/c it flies so far under the radar, that too many people fail to realize it’s occurring,or worse, use it to embolden themselves.
That is only because you are not aware of the weekly White People Solidarity meetings. They’re held every Wednesday morning at Shoney’s.
I would have said that if the professor gave a genuine apology, he shouldn’t be fired. But as he has already issued a completely dishonest apology, he needs to go.
In a related story, an Alabama AP government teacher gave kids a summer reading list that included nothing but conservative authors, including Ann Coulter and Michael Savage:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/339012-ala-high-school-teacher-pulls-conservative-summer-reading-list
Political propaganda has no place in the classroom.
Consequences for one’s actions demand that he be fired regardless if he gave a genuine apology or not. In fact, a sincere apology would precede a letter of resignation.
We as a society have lost the need to hold people accountable for their actions regardless of the act of contrition. Does a cheater not be expelled because they apologize for cheating after getting caught? If there are no consequences there is no method of holding one accountable. And if there is no accountability, where is the deterrent no to do it again if the cost is little to none? There is none.
Another liberal/progressive/communist, racist, hateful douche bag, useless professor/protester.
Bite my white azz.
Choosing to let someone drown when you can make a difference, choosing not to help someone get away from a burning building, choosing not to help someone shot at a sports event… HOW can you make that decision of the value of the victim’s life during the emergency? Do you make them answer a survey about their politics before you are willing to act? That ugly white guy in the burning car may not be white or a guy. You cannot know their gender or racial viewpoints while they drown. And what if you’re wrong and you let an ally die? Doesn’t that make you worse than the stupid people who oppress you?
This is why the BLM just had to devolve to this level of toxic. Chanting BLM doesn’t encourage enlightenment and better choices. Every shout includes the silent opposite that non-black lives don’t matter and ths jerk is finally saying it out loud. Wish it wasn’t so.
Well, in the normal course of events, you probably would not know. But what if you did know? Some Klansmen, in the middle of a good old-fashioned cross burning, when two of them get into a shootout. You, black person strolling by, do you rush in to try to save the other members from bullets? Do you give emergency aid? Do you just get the hell out of dodge?
These examples are getting a bit absurd, b/c now you’re increasing the risk of action, without any obligation to act (which the Capitol Police officer had). I dont know that I’d storm a firefight to save a baby, much less a Klansman, because my chance of success is minimal, and the risk is great. But if I could save a baby or Klansman from death, with a reduced risk to my own well being, that changes the story; the answer is “likely yes”
You keep acting like this is an article stating there is no duty to rescue. That’s not the point of the article. The point of the article is to discourage rescue, maybe even to impose a duty not to rescue.
“Well, in the normal course of events, you probably would not know. But what if you did know?”
You cannot make that decision based on whether you know. Very little can be known when it’s time to decide for an emergency. On sight is really all you got. None of us is omniscient, so you can’t add that as a precondition to help. This drowning boy might grow up to be a bad president, that cannot mean that jeering and feeling satisfied can be justified.
This discussion leaves me sadder and more alarmed about our collective future than anything I can remember reading anywhere.
Yes, I was afraid of that…
Today, we are seriously discussing whether we would allow certain types of people to drown in a pool or die in a fire. That’s exactly one rung on the ladder away from debating whether it’s okay to kill certain types of people outright. There are no other rungs after that.
But we already agree as a society that it is ok to kill some types of people outright. That’s not really up for debate. So I’m not sure why the fuss over this. Mostly people disagreeing over the categories where it’s ok versus categories where it isn’t ok, it seems to me.
“But we already agree as a society that it is ok to kill some types of people outright.”
No, we don’t. The only thing I can imagine that you could possibly be talking about is the death penalty. And if you aren’t The State, and try to impose the death penalty as an individual, you are going to jail. I’d love for you to start making sense so we could argue about this.
Self-defense? Defense of others? Defense of property, even.
Those aren’t “killing people outright” so no.
Yeah. I’m shocked by some of the notions being pushed here and I honestly hope deery was merely “floating” an idea but has either been bogged down in a prideful refusal to admit error or is playing an incredibly believable devils advocate.
I hope to dive into this this evening. But have a wedding to attend.
My husband and I have this discussion quite often. He feels there is no duty to rescue any of the assholes of the world, and his definition of what constitutes an asshole is far broader than mine. (For e.g., he has Bill Gates on his list because of his proliferation of a shitty operating system.)
The reason we have this discussion is that I do feel that there is a duty to rescue, but I do not feel that this duty is absolute. (And also he is a nutter, as his position on Bill Gates demonstrates.) I have no duty to be a live organ donor, but if a friend or family member needed one, I would do it. If Trump asked me, I would not. It’s absolutely my call and I while I don’t wish him to die, I would rather reserve that kidney for someone more worthy.
I also have risked my life a few times rescuing dogs/cats who have wandered their way on the highway. As the Professor above would most likely agree, this is quite foolish on my part. I have children and a husband who need me. Their lives would be forever changed if I came to harm, but would the world be a significantly better place if one more kitten was saved? (We fought just the other day because he wouldn’t stop the car on a moderately busy highway for me to save a turtle. If I had been driving, I would have stopped.)
Does a spouse have a duty to save another spouse? Sure, but it’s not absolute. What if the husband engages in extreme physical and mental abuse? What if it is only moderate abuse? What if I just discovered that my husband has abused my child? I would argue that in the latter case, not only has the duty to rescue been eliminated, I should have the right to kill my husband. (And even though I don’t have the right, I doubt a jury would convict so I would do it anyway.)
It’s easy to have a discussion about physical harm though, but the pen truly does more damage than the sword. People in power can change lives overnight. In some countries, women and girls have absolutely no rights or autonomy, receive little to no education, and are valued only for their ability to reproduce. Other countries have huge sex trafficking problems in women and children, but corrupt officials turn a blind eye or directly profit from the scheme. What about the priests or college administrators who ignored evidence of sexual assault and protected the attackers? I say eff these people. Not only do I not have a duty to rescue, they might need some rescuing if I stumble across them in a back alley.
But, now it gets harder for me — what about laws that harm people, but aren’t actually causing physical harm, but extreme mental anguish? It wasn’t too long ago that bi-racial marriage was outlawed in many states. Obviously gay marriage is a more current version of the same thinking. Gay adoption is still hard in many states, and there, only one parent can be listed as the parent. So, if that parent dies or if the couple splits up, one parent can be denied access to his/her child. I find that to be appalling and, if I were not allowed to raise my children, I would have a miserable life. Do I have a duty to try and save a person’s life who is trying, through policy, to deny basic rights — like marriage, children, etc. — to others? I would argue no, BUT, I sure hope that I am never put in the position of knowingly trying to save David Duke’s life. Whether I did or I didn’t, I don’t think I would ever rest comfortable with my decision.
Thanks, Sp. Great post. COTD.
I started to comment in response to your titular question, and it sort of took on a life of its own. It’s here if you’re interested (or even if you’re not).
Deery’s introduction of hypothetical Klansmen or Hitlers into the discussion have muddied the waters somewhat. For the most part, the “bigots” who are having the value of their lives debated in this case are mostly just guilty of the crime of being Republicans. Race warmongers like Son of Baldwin would love to imagine every Congressperson with an R in front of their name as a literal Hitler. It would make their visceral, seething hatred more reasonable.
It’s pretty cut and dry to someone who values Jesus’ teachings: you love everyone, even your enemies. And yes, you save their lives if you can. This policy has the following advantages:
-It’s consistent and logical. If human lives should be saved, then I should not make exceptions based on the fact that a particular person hates me. Humans are generally each flawed in some non-trivial way. Maybe I see someone drowning in a pool who isn’t a racist, but who beats his wife. Or performs abortions. Or is the CEO of Herbalife. Save or don’t save? Where exactly is the logical place to draw the line?
-If I let someone die because he hates people like ME, but let him live if his particularly hatred is towards people NOT like me (for example, say, white people) then I’m clearly just being selfish and tribal. Treating people equally is better.
-It removes me from the position of judge, deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die. This is especially important when snap judgements are necessary and there are only seconds available to make a decision.
-It’s the best possible way to bring people around to your position. You know, not wishing them dead.
-It can be argued that there is no moral difference between murder and letting someone die when it is in your power to save them. There may be a legal difference, and Daddy Government may be the only arbiter of morality remaining for some people, but “legal” and “right” remain two different things. It’s better not to be a killer.
-It’s the only policy that won’t foster more tribalism, disunity, hatred, and death. Claim to be on the “moral” side because you are historically oppressed all you want, but history is filled with bloody-handed oppressors who were previously oppressed themselves. The Hutus of Rwanda come to mind. Even the Nazis themselves justified themselves this way.
-Loving one’s enemies breaks the never-ending cycle of violence. Granted, some folks LIKE the never-ending cycle of violence, but it doesn’t stop until people start forgiving and moving on. Bloods and crips, Hatfields and Mccoys, Hutu and Tutsi. There are those wise enough to want peace, and those who want to harp on differences and slights until blood spills again. The latter are either perverse or simply small-minded fools.
This is my choice for COTD.
It’s very good.