No, what’s insane is for anyone to watch that video and misunderstand the clear meaning of what lecturer Phillip Lowcock said. I doubt anyone did misunderstand him. This manufactured scandal is conservatives acting like political correctness-addled progressives.
“[If you believe] guys are smarter than girls, you’ve got some serious problems. That’s what frustrates me,” Lowcock says in the video. “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.”
And he clearly doesn’t understand how university administrators work in age of The Great Stupid. They are weenies. They sacrifice common sense and principles to avoid conflict.
I have read conservative piranha claiming that he said that any man who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris should be shot. No, he said that thinking that women aren’t smart enough to be President is an idiotic reason not to vote for a woman, and they “should be shot” means that such ignorant bigots are useless and a blight on the culture, which isn’t that far off the mark. Now, thinking Kamala isn’t smart enough to be President is something else, and completely reasonable, but Lowcock didn’t say that.
As for “Did I say that? Scratch that from the recording. I don’t want the deans hearing that I said that,” it’s obviously a joke, not a serious cover-up. His tone is humorous. I’ve been a stage director long enough to know when a line is not intended to be taken seriously.
Any conservative social media troll or university administrator who seriously thinks Lowcock’s comment was anything but facetious exaggeration and completely benign should be shot.
I wish Lowcock would stand his ground and refuse to be sacrificed to the God of Perpetual Offense, but he’s already groveling. This is how the censors break you: it’s like Winston Smith having the hungry rats at his face. No job is worth surrendering one’s self respect to save.
Ethics Alarms 
No he did not say men who don’t vote for Kamala should be shot but that was the clear implication because he he mentioned a presidential candidate. Sure going after this guy for such a statement is not worth the time, but in today’s world where every utterance or image of a conservative candidate is either construed literally or distorted then “them’s the rules”. Conservatives do not make the rules and they are just learning to play by them.
Is it deceitful to imply that given that we are 30 days away from an election and a female candidate is running against a man that he is only speaking about a generic female candidate simply because he does not make that explicit assertion. If it is deceitful to use an image of a woman and children to suggest he is the father and husband of a candidate, other than one being a candidate for office, is this too not deceit?
I have to wonder. Why is it even brought up? If the goal of the lecture was to address biases when voting why did I not hear him say anything about women voting for a female candidate because those women believe women are inherently better because they are female. Are they not bigots as well. Why only suggest bigotry is a male behavior? That’s clearly the implication. Or, was he just trying to curry favor with his female students?
In an ideal world both sides would treat each other fairly but just as human nature prevents the creation of a Utopian society in which everyone shares equally the work and profits so too is the idealized world of genteel politics.
This is a case of live by the sword you die by the sword. I myself would prefer no swords at all but I have to live in the real world.
I don’t like whataboutism but we blame Trump for language that can be used by the likes of CNN’s John Berman -regarding murderers and genes – to bludgeon him through actual deceitful misrepresentation but this guy is just fine. I just don’t get it.
Great reply. What is this rhetoric even doing in an excercise and sports science class? My roommate was in this class and was stunned how they even got to this topic. This is inherently what is wrong with America. Whatever side you are on, very personal issues, religion, political stance and sexual commentary are not appropriate in an office, nor academic setting. At least that’s what I was taught. This professor has crossed these grounds before in a sexual commentary (see rate my professor). Why have we decided it’s ok to air every personal view left or right? Shut up and teach! Students are here to learn about excercise science. Period.
“There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president.”
you are right. He does not mention Kamala. He could be talking about all of those other “potential females president[s],” like Tulsi, Nikki, and Marianne Williamson. It just so happens that he makes this remark right before this election.
This comment played much better in the fall of 2021.
From the article: “Lowcock is a health sport and exercise lecturer who also serves as director of international student-athlete support.”
health sport and exerciser lecturer? HEALTH SPORT AND EXERCISER LECTURER?
?????
?!?!?!?!
what the HELL is a health sport and exerciser lecturer doing talking politics? I expected to discover he was some kind of Politician-Sci, History, Anthropology professor. I can imagine how these comments may have something to do with “health,” but it almost requires John Lennon-level imagination.
I don’t have much sympathy for people who cannot refrain from bringing up politics ALL THE TIME. In my experience, this is usually a trait of the Left.
then, there is the problem that he is making two strawman arguments at once.
1. There are men that won’t vote for a woman because they think women are not smart enough. who is that group? I expect that it is quite small, small enough to be insignificant. I did not vote for Hillary, but that decision had nothing to do with whether she was smart enough to be President. Biden, on the other hand….
(And the common conservative response is “I would vote for Condoleeza Rice, if she ran.” Of course, Confoleeza’s problem is that she is TOO smart to run for President.)
2. There is an implicit argument that a decision not to vote for Kamala (or Marianne Williamson) must be because of sexism.
and, then there is the line them up and shoot them remark. This is a stupid comment. Considering the current climate of leftist violence across college campuses, invoking communist/fascist imagery is ill-advised. If he wanted to be funny, he should have been more outrageous. Lynching? No. Tar and feathering? Maybe. Run out on a rail? Closer. Pilloried on a scaffold in the public square (or quad) where we can throw rotten tomatoes and feces at them from sun up to sundown on the Saturday preceding Election Day? That’s it!
I just don’t have much sympathy for this idiot.
-Jut
Among the most educational and thought-provoking political comments I ever heard in college came from Prof. George Wald, a biologist. Of course, he was a Nobel Prize winner and had been named one of Time Magazines 10 best U.S. teachers. There’s nothing wrong with off-topic commentary by a teacher, as long as it is competent and responsible.
Not responsible, not anything to do with the class and too close to the election to be simply “thought-provoking”. Why some people feel the need to air every thought they have is beyond me – left or right. And yes I am a girl and took his class. Diarrhea of the mouth about personal issues and views seems to be an epidemic amongst college professors
Always has been, and always will, and though the privilege can be abused and often is, always should be. When I was teaching legal ethics in a law school, I would sometimes reference a movie or TV show with a legal ethics issue of note. Was it worthy of discipline if I also said that the performances in the movie were excellent and mentioned that I regarded the director as an ace? Did the fact that I have some genuine expertise in that area protect me?
This forum is 100% opposed to partisan and political indoctrination at all levels of education. But teachers are not wisely confined to a single topic with occasional musings outside the line the target of punishment. They are older, more experienced and theoretically have wisdom to share on life and other matters of general importance. They should be not just allowed, but encouraged to do it—if they can do it responsibly and well.
Yeah, I got the meaning is that if you won’t vote for Harris, you should be shot. This is the typical Democratic tactic of attributing everything to racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Could you tell me, with a strait face, that every time a Democrat blamed criticism of a black elected official on racism, they were ‘only’ speaking about actual racists who were attacking the official ‘only’ because of their racism? Could you tell me with a straight face that every time criticisms of Hillary Clinton were based on sexism that it was REALLY only because of sexism that they were criticizing Hillary Clinton?
What percentage of the time that Democrats cry racism, sexism, or homophobia is the triggering action REALLY from people because they are racist, sexist, or homophobic? Now take that percentage and apply it here. That is the chance that this statement means what he literally said.
You’re reading an awful lot into a statement that was made general and is 100% correct. There are wonderfully strong reasons not to vote for Harris but the fact that she is a woman isn’t one of them. And there are men who believe that. And they are morons, who gum up the works. I would vote for Spuds before I would vote for Harris, but there is nothing in his entire statement that I would feel uncomfortable saying myself, though I would be clearer and funnier.
It could go either way.
Millions of people have been harangued for thinking Barack Obama was a bad president because it “revealed” their racism. Same with Hillary and sexism.
Maybe I’m just the dog hearing the dog-whistle in this case, but there certainly seems to be a hanging “anyone who thinks this woman presidential candidate isn’t worthy to be president should be shot.”
He could just be an unfortunate bystander, being in close proximity to the terminally identity-politics-obsessed population that infests higher education, but it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt when it certainly sounds like a veiled shot at any man who wouldn’t vote for a candidate who is a woman.
I don’t know how many readers of this blog have any affiliation with the University of Kansas. I do. I got my PhD there twenty-something years ago, and I’ll be heading to Lawrence at the end of the month to attend a meeting of the Professional Advisory Board established by my department at KU. So I guess I’d start by saying I’m not impressed by the snarky “cough” at the end of this piece.
That said, I’m pretty much in agreement with Jack.
There are a couple of other things to mention. First, it’s unclear whether the taping of the lecture was done with the approval of the instructor. Most places, the answer would be no, at least since students have been expected to be physically present in classrooms post-shutdown. He does refer to a recording, but he may be suggesting something he believes doesn’t actually exist.
If I were directing an actor playing that role, I’d have urged him to lighten up the delivery of the line about the deans (it’s a little too deadpan) but it’s absolutely clear that it’s a joke, just as it’s also clear that the “line them up and shoot them” line is an exaggeration for effect. Such obvious exaggeration intended to be interpreted as such has happened in my classroom dozens if not hundreds of times over the course of my career. Notable exception: on the couple of occasions when Disability Services has notified me that one of my students is on the autism spectrum (or if I’ve suspected it on my own), I’ve avoided such expressions, or at the very least immediately clarified that I was exaggerating.
It is also possible, of course, that someone–presumably but not necessarily by Ned Ryun, described in the Kansas City Star article as the son of Jim Ryun, a hard-right pol–taped the lecture surreptitiously. Doing so is always–yes, always–done with bad intent. Those people are looking for ammunition.
Over the years, a handful of students have requested to record my lectures; most of them had some kind of accommodation from Disability Services, and I agreed… on condition that no one else hear that recording. There have been too many incidents of this kind, and it’s too easy to take a single line or two out of context. (Yes, I know, that probably wasn’t sufficient protection, but at least the student would have had to lie to my face.)
Notice that out of what one presumes is a 50-minute or longer lecture, we see barely 30 seconds. We don’t know the context. Ned Ryun made sure that we don’t know the context. A few weeks ago, I talked about Donald Trump in a lecture on Roman theatre, specifically about a guy named Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (the Younger). I said something like “that [his wealth] is not a reason to trust or vote for Donald Trump.” If a variation on the theme of Ned Ryun had been in my class, there would be copious gnashing of teeth on the part of some commenters here. What would have been cut, judiciously, of course, was the next sentence: “There may be plenty of other reasons to do so, but that isn’t one of them.” We don’t know if something similar happened here, but I’d suggest it’s not merely a possibility but a probability.
The previous few seconds could, for example, have set up the relevance of talking about the commentary on the presidential election–which, by the way, is absolutely appropriate material precisely because it is on students’ minds. Drawing analogies between the subject matter and ideas or concepts that students understand more completely is the essence of good pedagogy.
The fact is that over my career I’ve probably uttered dozens of completely innocuous 30-second sound bytes that, taken out of context, could be interpreted as anything from a political stance to an incitement to violence. This is another “there but for the grace of God” moment for me: not because I “got away with” something, but because too many people of all persuasions make themselves feel better by destroying someone else. The fact that the GOP-dominated Regents and the Democratic governor both piled on to this foolishness, and that the Star blithely states that Lowcock “endors[ed] violence” (not that hi remarks “could be interpreted as…”) and that he “rants” is problematic at best and terrifying at worst.
Oh, one more thing: Jack says Lowcock is “groveling.” We don’t know that. I’ve seen nothing from him (admittedly, I haven’t looked very hard). What we know is that the university says he’s groveling. It is increasingly, and distressingly, true that university administrators are liars. I wouldn’t trust any of the last four presidents of my university if they told me that NBA centers tend to be tall.
Be it noted: I’ve taught college-level courses in every decade since the ’70s, so I’m a little prejudiced on Lowcock’s behalf. But to suggest that what he did was anything worse than inelegant is nuts. And it’s why good teachers at all levels are leaving the profession.
I apologize for the “cough,” which was a gratuitous cheap shot, and I removed it. Right now I’d be prone to “cough” at any university and college, my two alma maters more than the others. I don’t know why I did it, to be honest. I was just in a bad mood.
Anyway, it’s gone.
A couple of things. I was coming back to this post and wondering why KU was the ethics dunce — Jack doesn’t mention that the university has placed him on leave, although the article he links to does. Now that I have read the article it is just astonishing how over the top some of the reactions are.
I take your point about surreptitious taping always indicating bad intent. I will say that I am not a very good note taker, but I can’t see myself wanting to listen to a lecture a second time.
I have used the phrase ‘They should be taken out back and shot’ more than once at work. In context it was always intended — and taken — as a joke. Typically it would involve a client who’s done something stupid but we all know there’s no real remedy. Perhaps if we lived in a society where such things actually happened, we wouldn’t joke about it. Maybe.
At any rate, thanks for your perspective. I always appreciate your comments, whether I agree or not.
I think there’s a balance to be made, and I think you might be being overly generous to teaching faculty.
I speak publicly. Not for my job, but probably once or twice a year, at conferences. Often, I rely on my expertise and speak off the cuff. Is that dangerous? Maybe, but I’ve never found myself in any danger of even imagining a situation where I’d feel even slightly comfortable suggesting any group of people be lined up and shot, even as an unserious exaggeration.
I think professors, like journalists, have become far too comfortable in saying things that they probably shouldn’t say at work, in expressing themselves to captive and unwitting audiences, with the expectation of entitlement to do so on free-speech grounds, as if the utterances of lecturers or journalists weren’t work product.
I admit we don’t have context… But sometimes what’s in front of us is stupid enough to make a pretty obvious judgement. Can you articulate any context, blue sky it, where a lecturer in the Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science Department would appropriately utter the words: “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.”?
Humble Talent: “Can you articulate any context, blue sky it, where a lecturer in the Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science Department would appropriately utter the words:….”
Unless it is simply off-topic, a la Jack, above, Health, Sport and Exercise might legitimately address physical differences between men and women, the ways those differences affect outcomes and potential injuries in sport and exercise, and reasons for NOT having integrated sports teams. That argument about PHYSICAL differences could be contrasted with a comparative LACK of mental strengths between the sexes. Blah, Blah, Blah.
Q.E.D. (Or, since Jack doesn’t like abbreviations like LOL, “Quod Erat Demonstrandum.)
-Jut
First off… I don’t think that means what you think it does.
And Second… You need to tie it all together. You’ve almost made an argument that a sports guy could be talking about sex differences, we just have to get to: “Therefore we could line them up and shoot them”
Humble Talent, you said this: “Can you articulate any context, blue sky it, ”
”Any context”
“Blue sky it”
Q.E.F.
-Jut
Again… What point do you think you’re making?
For context, what I said was:
“Can you articulate any context, blue sky it, where a lecturer in the Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science Department would appropriately utter the words: “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.”?
Your response, like your previous response, doesn’t actually respond to what I said. And I’m not sure if it’s because you don’t want to engage with it, or can’t.
The point of the exercise is that I don’t think an appropriate context exists because it’s going to be hell to try to articulate one. In response to that, you didn’t even try, you just said a sports lecturer could be pointing out that sex differences exist to his class.
Unless you think it’s appropriate for a lecturer in the Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science to utter the words: “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.” So long as he’s trying to educate his class in sex differentiation?
Had I been in the classroom and been able to think quickly enough, I might have asked the following question:
Sir, it’s quite possible that there are some women in this country who refuse to vote for a female Presidential candidate simply because she’s a woman. I don’t know what their reasoning might be, but they simply won’t vote for a female candidate. What’s to be done with them?
Truthfully, the man is entitled to his opinions, but it seems rather harsh to even think, much less posit in a lecture hall, that a group of people could simply be eradicated because of a singular opinion, stupid as it might be. I have to believe he would not want someone implying that he could be lined and shot because one of his opinions was considered out of sync with the way the world works.
One of my favorite professors has a masters degree in Math, the conversations we’d have when it came to facts and statistics genuinely made math interesting. Watching him obliterate a whiteboard was genuinely engaging. And he was one of the most awkward, socially retarded people I have ever met in my entire life.
I think there’s some personal responsibility here. The lecturer we’re talking about, Phillip Lowcock (and I’d have paid money even before this to change my last name, even before this, if I were him) was in the Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science. He knew he was being recorded. He was speaking publicly.
I’m not saying that what he said was as bad as what’s being said about him, but what he did say was cripplingly stupid, both as a construction and in context, and completely outside the wheelhouse of his curriculum.
None of which, however, typically justifies discipline under the principles of academic freedom.
Academic Freedom?
The man was a Lecturer in the Sports Department.
Speaking Publicly.
While Being Recorded.
At work.
Articulating Lining Up People And Shooting Them.
I don’t care if it was an unserious joke, defending that is an unserious practice.
I see treating that obvious figure of speech as anything but as the equivalent of calling the suicide hotline on me after I write that I’m looking for a woodchipper.
Either I’m missing something or you are: When did “Line them up and shoot them” become an obvious figure of speech?
No, sorry… This is the stupid argument, it’s not a figure of speech, but it’s almost obviously not a legitimate statement of intent either, and that’s the point I think you’re making: He obviously didn’t mean it.
I don’t understand why that matters? In your opinion, Is there no limit to what someone can say as a professional work product without repercussion, so long as they top it of with, “it’s just a joke, bro?”
It’s like this is a parody conversation of what lefties have been making fun of for years. Absent a damn good reason to (and good luck trying to enunciate that) a professional (and believe it or not, professors are ostensibly professionals) should not articulate lining a group of people up and shooting them, particularly if some of the people holding views like that might be in the audience, even in jest.
And I can’t believe I have to type that out.
Because that hyperbole is a statement of how societally destructive such an attitude is, and that’s all it means. As a stage director, I will aim and shoot a finger gun at a performer who makes an egregious error during a scene. Does it mean I want to kill him? Does he take it that way? No, and no. What is this, gun-phobia?
How many times in your entire professional life have you suggested, in hyperbole, lining up a group of people and shooting them?
I’m sorry, but I feel like your arguments are being purposefully obtuse. My expectation is that you’re going to say that you’ve never said that, and the reason I expect that you’ll say that is because this is obviously, facially, an incredibly stupid thing to say, because this is obviously different than a finger gun.
You’re too nice, being from Canada. There are so many shooting idioms and phrases here that the default assumption is or should be that a shooting reference is metaphorical or facetious. Here are a sampling…
(as) sure as shooting
a shooting spree
a turkey shoot
aim for the sky
as easy as shooting fish in a barrel
be shooting for the same target
crapshoot
don’t shoot the messenger
drive-by shooting
flip (one) the bird
flip/give/shoot somebody the bird
give (one) the bird
go on a shooting spree
green shoots
He shoots, he scores!
like shooting fish in a barrel
play the dozens
poop chute
She shoots, she scores!
shoot
shoot (one) a dirty look
shoot (one) the bird
shoot (one’s) bolt
shoot (one’s) breakfast
shoot (one’s) cookies
shoot (one’s) cuffs
shoot (one’s) fox
shoot (one’s) load
shoot (one’s) mouth off
shoot (one’s) shot
shoot (one’s) supper
shoot (one’s) wad
shoot (oneself) in the foot
shoot (some) hoops
shoot (someone or something) (all) to hell
shoot (someone or something) down in flames
shoot a line
shoot a place up
shoot an eagle
shoot blanks
shoot bolt
shoot cookies
shoot daggers at (one)
shoot down
shoot down in flames
shoot down, to
shoot ’em up
shoot first, ask questions later
shoot for
shoot for (something)
shoot for the moon
shoot for the sky
shoot for the stars
shoot from the hip
shoot from the lip
shoot full of holes
shoot hoops
shoot in the foot
shoot it out
shoot it out with (someone)
shoot mouth off
shoot off
shoot off (one’s) face
shoot off (one’s) mouth
shoot off at the mouth
shoot off mouth
shoot off one’s mouth
shoot one’s bolt
shoot one’s bolt, to
shoot one’s breakfast
shoot one’s cookies
shoot one’s mouth off
shoot one’s supper
shoot one’s wad
shoot oneself in the foot
shoot oneself in the foot, to
shoot out
shoot somebody/something down
shoot someone down in flames
shoot someone or something down
shoot someone or something down in flames
shoot someone’s fox
shoot square
shoot straight
shoot the boots off (one)
shoot the breeze
shoot the bull
shoot the bull, to
shoot the cat
shoot the crap
shoot the dozens
shoot the lights
shoot the lights out
shoot the messenger
shoot the moon
shoot the place up
shoot the works
shoot the works, to
shoot through
shoot through (to somewhere)
shoot through like a Bondi tram
shoot to hell
shoot to pieces
shoot to ribbons
shoot up
shoot up on something
shoot up the place
shoot wad
shoot your bolt
shoot your cuffs
shoot your mouth off
shoot your wad
shoot yourself in the foot
shooting iron
shoot-out
shoot-up
shucks!
skeet-shooting
so shoot me
sure as shooting
Sure as shooting!
the whole enchilada
the whole shebang
the whole shoot
the whole shooting match
throw the bull (around)
turkey shoot
whole ball of wax, the
whole shebang
would (just) as soon (do something) as look at (one)
I mean, we have shooting idioms in Canada too, and I hadn’t heard of some of those, but you know what wasn’t in that list of turns of phrase, obviously copy-pasted from the internet?
“Line them up and shoot them”
Turns of phrase are supposed to convey a meaning other than the literal interpretation of the words… “crapshoot” doesn’t mean you’re literally shooting crap, it describes something that’s hard to control, meanwhile “shoot the shit”, although seemingly near-identical to “crapshoot” means making small talk, usually among friends.
What is “Line them up and shoot them” supposed to convey?
As I said: “people believing this are irredeemable.” If he said, “They are pieces of shit,” it would be exactly the same thing. If you concede that it wasn’t a literal suggestion, then I guess I don’t see why you find it especially offensive.
Way to dodge.
You haven’t answered whether there is any level of rhetoric that could reasonably cause discipline, even if the speaker wasn’t being serious (I think because we both know there obviously is).
And you didn’t answer what “Line them up and shoot them” is supposed to convey (I think because it’s not actually used as a turn of phrase).
And both of those matter, because this isn’t like calling someone a piece of shit, because I think that everyone understands that calling someone a piece of shit isn’t actually asserting that they are anthropomorphic feces. We understand the reference, the point you’re making is if he had instead said “Those people are too stupid to live” we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But even if it were, I don’t know that it’s appropriate to call groups of people pieces of shit or too stupid to live in a lecture, even if I would, and often do, say something like that here.
Again… How many times in your professional life have you suggested people be lined up and shot?
I’ll respond in more detail (I’m late for a thing) but in the very first song in “My Fair Lady,” Prof Henry Higgins talks about how those who speak bad English are a blight on society, and says, “By rights they should be taken out and hung, for the cold blooded murder of the English tongue.”
Explain to me how saying slang-speakers should be “hung” (he should have said “Hanged”) and saying men who think women are dumb should be “lined up and shot.” Because the device seems the same to me….
Still dodged. I think you know the difference, but if you’re going to make me write it:
Well…. In one case, you have a real life professional speaker, in a classroom he controls, being paid to educate on the topic of sports.
And in the other case, you have a paid actor, in a fictitious setting, singing in a musical, being paid to say those words.
Agree @HumbleTalent. Again, why is an exercise and sports science prof. even talking about politics? He tends to get this off topic which is another issue-can’t teach the actual subject which we’re paying for!
That’s an aspect of the issue that isn’t relevant, and not in evidence. If the instructor routinely goes off topic, then that’s grounds for discipline or other remedial measures. The issue is disciplining him for a single statement that too less than a minute.
Kind of! I mean… They’re post-secondary courses, so we’re not paying for them. But the students are.
They’ve paid for an education, in this case a sports education… Which to be fair, I’m not sure what that curriculum entails. But I’d be willing to bet large sums of money, that the curriculum doesn’t references to how the people who won’t vote for Kamala Harris because she’s a woman are too stupid to live.
I suppose I could be wrong, and that would highlight a different problem. But barring that: The professor isn’t being paid to speak on his personal political gripes. The students aren’t buying an education in Phillip Lowcock’s shittily expressed political ideas.
And don’t get me wrong, Phillip Lowcock has every right to be as political as he wants, on his own time. From his own platform. To his own audience.
Humble Talent, 1979.
Pink Floyd
The Wall
Side 4
Track 21
In the Flesh
Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There’s one in the spotlight, he don’t look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one’s a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There’s one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I’d have all of you shot!
-Jut
I’m curious…. What do you think your point is?
Because I’m convinced that you just dug…. really fucking hard…. to find an instance of those words used in pop culture. And not only did you have to dig back 45 years…. But you chose a song in which the artist was conveying a hallucination of himself as a fascist dictator, who literally, not figuratively, wanted to line people up against a wall and shoot them.
My point was: you asked
”When did “Line them up and shoot them” become an obvious figure of speech?”
That was the question I was answering. 1979
that was my point. A direct answer to a question you posed. Granted, it is higher up in the thread, (so I will cut you some slack on being obtuse) but that’s my point.
and you said, “And not only did you have to dig back 45 years…. ”
you asked, “when”. That kind of defeats your argument. 45 FUCKING years ago!
then, you acted like a fucking ass: “Because I’m convinced that you just dug…. really fucking hard…. to find an instance of those words used in pop culture. “
How the hell old are you? I pulled that Pink Floyd quote out of my ass in less than 30 seconds. Would have been less but I had to compare and contrast Track 21 with Track 1, “In the flesh?” Which I prefer.
Maybe you are so old that you have not heard anything more recent than Buddy Holly; or maybe you are so young you thought Nirvana invented Rock music.
30 seconds—out my ass; piece of cake. (Yes-a piece of cake out of my ass.)
in either case, Pink Floyd. Check them out. The Wall, Comfortably Numb, Wish you were Here, Shine on you Crazy Diamond.
Produced by Bob Ezrin. The same Bob Exrin that produced School’s Out by the Alice Cooper group, on which, in Track 1, School’s Out, Ezrin brought in a bunch of children to sing part of the song, much the way he brought in children to sing lyrics in “Another Brick in the Wall.”
(I know you stodgy Canadians make the English look like frickin’ Aussies, but did you really not sense ANY humor in my Pink Floyd reference?)
Bonus Question: Did you sense ANY humor in the Aussie analogy?
-Jut
Jut…. That wasn’t a figure of speech…. That part of the song was about a man hallucinating being a fascist dictator and *literally* lining up groups of people to shoot them. That’s just describing the thing. “taking the dog for a walk” isn’t a turn of phrase if you’re literally going to walk your dog.
No one here has been able to articulate what other meaning was meant by “line them up and shoot them”.
“30 seconds—out my ass; piece of cake. (Yes-a piece of cake out of my ass.)”
See? You do know how this is supposed to work: Like that…. You aren’t doing anything involving cake, or your ass! You’re conveying, with two different turns of phrase, that something is easy! Gold star.
“Bonus Question: Did you sense ANY humor in the Aussie analogy?”
I would love for you to articulate the joke… I think you keep on using words that don’t mean what you think they do, and in that, yes… I’m deeply amused.
I’m not reading much into it at all. How about “If you won’t vote for a black man because you don’t think black men are intelligent or civilized enough, you should be put up against a wall and shot” being stated in October 2008? Please try to tell me that the Democrats didn’t frame people voting for McCain as racist. Just try to tell me that. How about “If you believe in using eugenics to get rid of minorities, you should be put up against the wall and shot”. I would say that is about the same thing. You might say that any reasonable person should agree with that, but Democrats accuse Donald Trump of using eugenics to wipe out minorities. Democrats accuse Republicans of racism, sexism, and homophobia for their actions A LOT. Any time people decide not to vote for a female candidate, it is because of sexism and any time they decide not to vote for a black candidate, it is because of racism. So, no, I am not reading much into this at all, I am just paying attention.
Oh, Barack Obama just accused blacks of not backing Harris because of sexism. There couldn’t be any other reason. Just like the professor above stated.
“Yeah, you know, I’m in favor of execution. Maybe our entire team needs to be executed after tonight.”
-Notre Dame head football coach Brian Kelly, 05 Sep 2021
Coach Kelly gave this comment after being asked what he thought of his team’s performance after they earned a narrow victory against Florida State. In a later interview, he stated he was riffing off John McKay, former head coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. McKay was allegedly asked “What do you think of your team’s execution coach?”. His response: “I’m in favor of it.” That story was also attributed to Mets manager Casey Stengel.
It originates from an 1894 comic and quickly gained popularity from there. Groucho Marx incorporated it into his routine, asking the audience what they thought about his execution. They always responded that they were in favor of it. In no case is the suggestion of execution meant to be taken literally. It’s an expression of extreme embarrassment. Mr. Lowcock is expressing that same meaning of extreme embarrassment.
We don’t get the context of what prompted the line. We don’t even know if this was during a lecture or in between classes. In the lower right of the screen, we see a slide discussing sleep cycles. The first point is about differences in gender when it comes to sleep cycles. The line could have been made in response to a student asking if gender based differences in sleep cycles hinted at a gender based difference in average intelligence. The presidential election is less than a month away; tying his response to an upcoming national event could help with driving home his response.
We don’t know whether he continued with the lecture after the video ends, whether this even was during a lecture, or if he did start panicking at being caught saying such a line. It’s possible that Mr. Lowcock really did spontaneously launch into a violence filled tirade and the person filming was only able to get this roughly half minute clip. However, I say that the Golden Rule applies here. Suggesting execution in response to an embarrassing performance is a 120 year old joke. Unless we get any context, we should assume that Mr. Lowcock was not being literal when he said “We could line all those guys up and shoot them”.
Since this post was made, FIRE has sent a letter to KU in support of Mr. Lowcock.