Ethics Dunce (Again!): The Daily Caller

 

Yeah, I know…”She can play on my violin any time she likes…”

Tucker Carlson’s toy, conservative website “The Daily Caller,” headlined the story I mentioned in today’s warm-up about a teacher who sent naked photos of herself to a teen-aged former student, this way:

“Former Miss Kentucky Arrested For Assaulting 15-Year-Old Teen’s Eyes With Her Naked Body.”

I’ve called Carlson’s site on this kind of idiocy before. It’s the brainless, macho, “yeah, I sure wish a teacher had mistreated me like that when I was a kid” jerkism that seeds the next generation of Harvey Weinsteins and Matt Lauers, as well as perpetuating the still flourishing double standard that sees a male teacher who has sex with female high school student  as a rapist, but a male student who is seduced by his female teacher as lucky dog.

This is one of many reasons I don’t watch Carlson’s popular show on Fox.  I really don’t care what assholes with those kinds of warped values have to say about anything. Teachers cannot use their position to prey on students, and it doesn’t matter how attractive the teacher is or how appreciative her victim is.  The fact that so many conservatives gravitate to Carlson’s frat boy attitudes is one reason to be wary of conservatives.

I haven’t checked…let’s see if the comments on this article express the usual Daily Caller reader perspective…

Yup!

—Dang I wish she would send me one

—Why didn’t I have teachers like her when I was in school?

—Lucky kid.

—This sort of thing used to be the subject of Letters to Penthouse rather than legal action.

—I’m pissed off! We didn’t have the internet and cell phones when I was in High School!

—At 15 I wish I had a hot teacher. Mine were all gnarled up with blue hair.

—Whomever arrested her needs to be put in jail for a long time.

—This is not an assault, this kind of action needs to be praised!

—Women’s breasts are PURE ART! She should never be arrested by sharing art.

—This kid loved every bit of this

…and so on. The Left is raising rights-warping totalitarians, and the Right is teeming  with mouth-breathing morons.

24 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce (Again!): The Daily Caller

  1. Perhaps the article was headlined that way at first, but now it says: TEACHER AND FORMER MISS KENTUCKY ARRESTED AFTER SENDING NUDES OVER SNAPCHAT TO 15-YEAR-OLD TEEN.

    The article does not seem to condone it, though all those comments are there that you mentioned.

    I was surprised by this one: ELIZABETH WARREN HAS REPORTEDLY SET UP A TIPI — TO HEADQUARTER HER PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

      • Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, on the main page it reads that way.

        I think that what you are saying is that you object to the way it is expressed: “Former Miss Kentucky Arrested For Assaulting 15-Year-Old Teen’s Eyes With Her Naked Body” because it seems to ridicule, indirectly, a person who would be concerned — genuinely so — about such behavior.

        It is true that men’s typical reactions are, to one degree or another, similar even to one commenter here: “Poor kid will be scarred for life, scarred I say.” It is odd that the only way for a man to create an obscene image would be to include his genitals. But a woman — apparently — need only show her breasts. (Just a by-the-way observation). The genitals of both sex obviously are in a different category than the upper body. I only mention this because I will be interested to see if in fact the images sense are legally ‘obscene’ (which I gather would only be the case if the niggle is exposed, absurd though it sounds).

        One would have to see the images in order to make a final judgment. From what I have understood an image of a woman’s breasts is not obscene if the nipple is concealed. True, the entire situation is fundamentally *inappropriate* and should be condemned.

        Since the article itself does not condone the teacher’s behavior, your criticism of Carlson — your distrust — is that he would allow such an ambiguous lede in one of the articles that appear on the website he runs?

        I find Carlson not to be serious, and some of his website’s attitudes expose that. This is a hobby for him. Nope, I don’t trust him, and I don’t spend a lot of time listening to people I don’t trust.

        I have never looked over the website we are now talking about so I have no opinion. I admit to watching on YouTube — I do not watch television — some of his Tucker Carlson Tonight shows. I have to say that I find them surprisingly poignant on many issues.

        The issue and question of *trust* interests me. And also the statement about his journalism and his journalistic intentions as being a hobby. I am not sure what this last means. He has a very well paid job and, it must be said, is making a great deal of money through his position. In a sense would this not implicate many TV journalists and lead to questions of their trustworthiness? I admit to not being able to see things except in that way. The position, because it is so highly remunerated, would likely function as a seduction.

        But in a larger sense your comment about *trust* is interesting. The way I approach this issue is to hold that no one in our present, and no one with relatively high position, can be trusted because of the question of *complicity*. But I would also argue that our systems, our institutions, the academy, and also people in general senses, are corrupt. It is not just a *feeling*, although the issue of *sense* (as in the subjective *sense* that things are amiss) has a subjective element, but that in fact one cannot, not really, trust anyone. It is better to start from an initial position of distrust and then to see, over time, to what degree that trust is violated.

        I do not *trust*, at any level, the US government. There. I said it. If I cannot fundamentally trust the governing structure of the Nation, it does lead to a rather complex dilemma around the question of who can I trust? and who should be trusted? If the small issue of an inappropriately labeled lede is your criterion for *distrust*, I feel I have a slew of far more significant and far larger and consequential reasons for my sense of distrust, not only of the government (and many governing structures) but of people who are *complicit* within the systems that administer our life and especially those who mediate our ethical and moral existence.

        The entire problem — of trust — is quite interesting and quite difficult and complex.

      • This is one of many reasons I don’t watch Carlson’s popular show on Fox. I really don’t care what assholes with those kinds of warped values have to say about anything.

        But your comment really does mean — I would assume you’d have to agree — that you are a trusted authority and that your assessment (of Carlson, of Fox, and of any and all issues) is to be trusted!

        You are in the position that we all are in: we deal in ‘truth claims’ but, it must be said if we are to be intellectually honest, not truth-facts. I have been interested in something Richard Weaver said: All speech is sermonic. He explored this issue through an examination of rhetoric. Any communication is, in its essence, an attempt to influence. And the core question becomes: What is the position we hold from which we seek to influence? You speak of ‘warped values’ but you would have to explain more what you mean.

        The issue of ‘warped values’ is interesting to me. It is a bold declaration. Again, you are making an initial assertion about the integrity of your capacity to assess what is warped and what is not warped. (I must say that, at least before I saw Carlson’s show, taking Fox News seriously — about almost anything as you say — would have been difficult. But then I cannot and do not trust any of the MSM in the larger sense. They are corporations deeply complicity in fundamental lies and deceptions, and the safer position is to recognize this as a starting position for analysis).

        I find these questions — when they are teased out — to be fundamental to the issues of our present. It is in these differences in *truth-claims* that the Culture Wars take place.

    • It’s a show hosted by someone Ive heard plenty from, and read plenty of, thanks.

      Gee, can I decide that the Maxine Waters Show, the Al Sharpton Show, the Nancy Pelosi Show, the Ben Carson Show; The Joe Biden Show, the Chris Cuomo Show, the or the Hillary Show is not worth my time without having to torture myself? Do I have to see “Bridezillas” or “Big Brother” to decide that I’d rather alphabetize my sock drawer?

      I find Carlson not to be serious, and some of his website’s attitudes expose that. This is a hobby for him. Nope, I don’t trust him, and I don’t spend a lot of time listening to people I don’t trust.

    • Marie, I do not mean to criticize your political stance – but my middle needs no more encouragement to expand, and any such growth would not be cause for celebration.

  2. This attitude borders on ad hominem and smacks of bias.

    When you say, “i really don’t care what assholes with those kinds of warped values have to say about anything,” you betray a bias that is ad hominem in nature.

    Those assholes with warped values might be right. If you don’t care what they have to say, your biases is making you stupid.

    I remember one day where I found myself enlightened (?) by both Ezra Klein and Anne Coulter. Never thought Ezra Klein could utter a serious thought (Coulter is just amusing for her outrageous Schlick).

    Had I written off both or either of them, I would have lost an extremely important insight.

    -Jut

    • It’s a fair point, but that’s not ad hominem. When someone proves that their ethics reasoning tree ends up with approving teachers who use their position to get sexual jollies from kids, then I don’t trust their judgment. If I don’t trust their judgment, its a deal-breaker. I’m not saying that his arguments are bad because he’s an assh9le. I’m saying that I don’t trust the judgment of someone who can embrace such an indefensible attitude. See the difference?

      • No, It doesn’t. If not trusting their judgment is a deal-breaker, presumably, you would not trust their judgment, even if they are right. Why? Because of who they are. Your only argument against them would be ad hominem. If they said the sky was blue, your only response would be, “yeah, but they approve of children getting their sexual jollies with children,” so I don’t trust them.

        Ad Hominem.

        -Jut

        • Nope. I trust my own judgment, and evaluate arguments without letting the cognitive dissonance scale get in the way the best I can. But I don’t seek out the opinions of people who put me in that position. As President , would I choose an asshole as an advisor? Of course not. As a general rule, assholes aren’t ethical.

          • Excuse me for my interjections. My purpose here (on the blog and in general) is only to learn and clarify.

            I have questioned, shall I say, the integrity of some part of your position vis-a-vis homosexuality and, as you know, tend to come at the issue from a moral angle. You reject the moral angle and instead orient yourself toward the ethical and the legal angles.

            From your perspective — if I understand correctly — it is primarily illegal for an adult to send an obscene image to a minor. The issue begins there and in a sense ends there.

            It is possible in a shifting ethical environment — and indeed our ethical environment is in alarming and dramatic shift! — that her choice had a more limited ethical implication than at other times. It would have been appalling for a woman to have sent a pornographic image of herself to a teen boy just a few decades ago. Now, as it appears, there is more ambiguity. (And you notice this ambiguity and the double-standard).

            Yet your assessment and judgment is essentially jurisprudential: she should be tried and if found guilt convicted solely on the legal issue. Not on the issue of ‘immorality’.

            But there are so many open questions that hinge of the ethics of the issue. I now bring in your statement about ‘warped values’. But wait! A ‘value’ is something more than a mere legal definition. And there is more at play than a mere ‘ethical shift’ when you use the term ‘warped values’.

            You imply a structure of morality! How else could you define ‘warped values”? Or, would you then turn back strictly to the legal definition and the arbitrary ethical assignation?

  3. Crossing the line between educator and anything amorous is a betrayal of the standard and all ethical sence. Anyone who does not understand this betrays their own integrity. This sort of thing is the type of thing of vile sexual fantasies of teenage boys, and in adults it is pornographers fodder, any adult to entertain the open encouragement of such fantasies in a public forum betrays their own lack of decorum! We can not control peoples fantasies and a pornographer makes his living feeding these fantasies. But anyone else particularly a news organization should not engage in the salacious behavior publicly.

  4. I heartily agree with you that such double standards are harmful. I am hesitant to make such broad sweeping generalizations about conservatives. I fact, I believe such generalizations are what drive people into their opposing corners of intransigence.

    Sure, there are guys that make frat boy comments. What we fail to realize is that such comments may not reflect the maker’s true attitudes and behaviors toward women but more likely a behavioral need to belong to a group. It is equally likely that one comment opened the door to similar comments because other commenters simply followed the leader.

    If these comments were truly reflective of the maker’s attitudes toward women that belies all the other “protector” attitudes males display.

    I suggest we level the field completely, Get rid of old ideas on male and female roles when it comes to all things. Let us reexamine the notions of maternal supremacy in child rearing, discard outmoded ideas that males are the only expendable gender when war forces conscription, remove from the psyche that only females can be involuntarily coerced into sexual activity- let males level after the fact charges of sexual assault.

    I have no idea whether the above is being facetious or serious. I do know that roles provide a semblance of order. We created the female role as a means to protect the survival of the species. That morphed into familial social orders. We artificially created one gender that is culturally assumed to be the initiator and the other is taught to be coy and aloof in mating rituals. Culture created that which defines who is eligible and who is not.

    Personally, I advocate her prosecution because we would prosecute a male teacher for the same offense. Given that we are currently in a world where what was once taboo is now mainstream in terms of sexual attitudes it is difficult to say whether this is OK or not.

    It begs the question; If I condemn this today will I need to apologize to Naked Teachers when the behavior is mainstream cultural behavior 10 to 20 years hence. There is ample evidence to suggest that any sexual proclivity deemed offensive today could be the foundation of victimhood of someone practicing such proclivities in the future, just ask Kevin Hart.

    • I am hesitant to make such broad sweeping generalizations about conservatives.

      I would point out that the definition of ‘conservative’ is presently confused to a large degree. The term itself is problematical and misleading. Is Fox News really ‘conservative’? I am not sure if that is the case at all. Therefor, the issue here is one about initial definitions and ‘basic tenets’.

      I fact, I believe such generalizations are what drive people into their opposing corners of intransigence.

      I would say, as a sort of ‘therefor’, that when people cannot label things properly, or when categorization is confused, and also when categories are fought over in a confused intellectual environment, that ‘intransigence’ results.

      However, if ideas become clarified, and if definitions are clear and sound, one should be able to make proper assessments about things, and thus proper judgments.

      Sure, there are guys that make frat boy comments.

      Those who commented are not those who wrote the article nor are they responsible for the lede. Yet the lede does point to a certain ambiguity. There is a *wink* there, is there not? Is Fox News embroiled in similar ambiguities? Is Tucker Carlson? Who could justifiably answer “no”? At various points Fox News has represented a Neo-Conservative and openly pro-war stance. I mean this is just the tip of the iceberg, isn’t it? Who shall assess these questions of ‘warped values’ and, as well, open illegalisms?

      But the actual issue is infinitely larger, more difficult, more complex. The actual issue is that of being able to see, locate, separate out, and then either support or condemn ‘complicity’.

      Personally, I advocate her prosecution because we would prosecute a male teacher for the same offense. Given that we are currently in a world where what was once taboo is now mainstream in terms of sexual attitudes it is difficult to say whether this is OK or not.

      I would suggest another angle-of-view. The woman teacher has been charged, and therefor will (I guess) be tried. The larger question is really that values have been undermined and that — if one were to be really and truly truthful — no longer exist. Or if they exist, they exist in a sort of *weak shadow* of their former selves.

      The question of her prosecution becomes more an issue of the ABSURDITY of such an effort ( a cycle de l’absurde if one were to look at it from a French Existential angle and a postmodern angle). The boy likely has and regularly does look at pornographic images which show far more. The culture is absurdly pornographic.

      One attempts to advocate for ‘sound values’ in an environment where, in fact, those values have crumbled away. Those are the facts.

      The ethics that Jack proposes are ‘social agreements in a given moment’ in a moment that is constantly shifting. They do not have a moral understructure (as far as I have been able to tell).

  5. —Dang I wish she would send me one

    —Why didn’t I have teachers like her when I was in school?

    —Lucky kid.

    —This sort of thing used to be the subject of Letters to Penthouse rather than legal action.

    —I’m pissed off! We didn’t have the internet and cell phones when I was in High School!

    —At 15 I wish I had a hot teacher. Mine were all gnarled up with blue hair.

    —Whomever arrested her needs to be put in jail for a long time.

    —This is not an assault, this kind of action needs to be praised!

    —Women’s breasts are PURE ART! She should never be arrested by sharing art.

    —This kid loved every bit of this

    What if it were a priest sending naked pictures to an altar boy?

    would they change their tune?

  6. It couldn’t possibly cause a problem. Macron MARRIED his high school teacher after this sort of thing and he is the President of France now. See how well things turned out?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.