Such Luminous Beings
A University of Tampa professor recently suggested that Texans deserve the fallout from Hurricane Harvey because of their support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. “I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas,” Professor Ken Storey wrote.
Another ‘progressive’ educator swollen with compassion and floating above us on a higher moral plane.
One of Storey’s followers responded to the tweet by noting that there are “lots of good people in Texas,” and so he “may want to rethink this one.” “Well, the good people there need to do more to stop the evil their state pushes. I’m only blaming those who support the GOP there,” Storey elaborated, to which the same commenter replied by asking if he thinks the same about Trump supporters in Florida. “Yep, those who voted for him here deserve it as well,” Storey answered, though he later deleted his Twitter account.
Because when you hear of random people trapped and terrified, or learning that their loved ones were swept away and drowned, and when the local police chief is worried about “how many bodies” they’re going to find, the first thing you want to know, the really important thing, is, obviously, how they voted.
Oh. He teaches sociology, before you ask.
But surely Lord Stanley must’ve been a slave owner and shitlord and the cup must be renamed.
But surely Lord Stanley must’ve been a slave owner and shitlord…
White, male, conservative politician. Close enough for SJW work.
Tear it down…
No, I say you should both be able to spew as much as you want, but so long as you do it as private citizens, neither of you should pay with your jobs.
Of course, both of you might suffer resounding mockery and denouncements on social media, but that is all part of free speech.
This idea that one’s employment was something one is entitled to is an idea of the left.
Personally I didn’t feel bad for the Google guy. I think it was bad for Google and a stupid move on their part. But it is has long been the view from the right, not to mention one tgat is quite defensibke and rational, that a job is defined by the employer. He decides what the job is and how it should be performed. The employer created the job and it belongs to him, not to the employee. The leftists are the ones that have saddled us with all this absurd legal BS that corporations and such entities simply dance around anyway.
@Killer Marmot
Are you Rip Van Winkle’s twin? Have you been asleep in a cave for the last (x) years?
The Left have berated the Right for years now on being evil, Nazi, unfeeling, etc. We have taken them at their word and are now trying to emulate them. Hence, we now adhere to the doctrine “punch back twice as hard”.
We fully agree that if a baker can be shut down for their beliefs, then anyone else can as well.
We fully agree that if someone votes in a way that we disagree with, they should be fired.*
WE are being as moral as the Left is… and now this is wrong?
Sheesh
* see Brenan Eich
No, I say you should both be able to spew as much as you want, but so long as you do it as private citizens, neither of you should pay with your jobs.
Of course, both of you might suffer resounding mockery and denouncements on social media, but that is all part of free speech.
=====
Lovely sentiment. I’d like to live in that world.I used to live in that world. We no longer live in that world. Thanks ‘progressives’. Now we need to follow Breitbart’s dictum or be ground to dust. F*ck you, War!
Yes, it’s wrong. Beating people up because they’re wearing the wrong cap is wrong. Using the IRS to harass political groups because they have the wrong views is wrong. Hounding people out of their jobs for having the wrong views is wrong. Subjecting students to kangaroo courts when they are accused of serious misconduct is wrong. Destroying property and assaulting the police because you have a political grievance is wrong.
And it’s unnecessary. There are a thousand weapons you can use against the left without resorting to these tactics.
You don’t even have to be deeply principled about it. You just have to think “How would the average decent citizen want a political movement to behave? THAT is what’s likely to be most effective.”
Hounding people out of their jobs for having the wrong views is wrong.
He wasn’t hounded out of his job for having the wrong views. This wasn’t a disagreement on tax policy or immigration.
And again, it was just a job. The job never belonged to him. He was not personally harmed in any way. Unless he has an employment contract that states otherwise, the university was within its rights to relieve him of his duties. If not, then he has a legal case. Though I would be fairly certain the lawyers looked this over before it was decided.
Not in this case, no. The university likely did it of their own volition, possibly to avoid pressure. I was referring to other cases.
It appears that FIRE has taken an interest, although they have yet to express a definite opinion.
Actually, he might. The University of Tampa is a private university, but claims to support freedom of expression. Such public claims have sometimes been judged to be part of the employment contract; in other words, the courts often hold them to it.
,i>And it’s unnecessary. There are a thousand weapons you can use against the left without resorting to these tactics.
In a democracy the best way to power is votes. In the end if you keep getting the most votes you will likely keep power.
And the parties with the higher moral ground are likely to be the ones that get the most votes. Even scumbags like to think that they are virtuous.
Playing dirty is likely to lead to less votes, and therefore should be avoided. (This is why sections of the Left are so keen to dirty Trump with that Russian nonsense — suggesting he’s bent is far more effective than suggesting his policy positions are wrong.)
Unless you are suggesting that conservatives should play really dirty and get rid of democracy. Because that’s where endless tit-for-tat “we need to play as dirty as them” inevitably leads.
Chester Draws:
I don’t know if you’re agreeing with me, but I agree with you.
And it may be working. Avoiding the worst tactics of the left — like rioting, suppressing speech, and calling everyone who disagrees with them a bigot — may have helped the Republicans paint the nation’s map a nice, bright red, both federally and stateside.
And the parties with the higher moral ground are likely to be the ones that get the most votes.
California (or NY, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, Washington) democrats have more votes, and there is no evidence they have any moral high ground the way they are running their states into the ground. Corbyn, Merkel, Trudeau, all got more votes than whoever they were running against, and they have zero moral high ground that I can see.
Playing dirty is likely to lead to less votes…
Chicago democrats could not be reached for comment.
Unless you are suggesting that conservatives should play really dirty and get rid of democracy. Because that’s where endless tit-for-tat “we need to play as dirty as them” inevitably leads.
Nobody is coming close to saying that. The best way to fight guerrillas is, short of tactical nukes, to use guerrilla tactics. The best way to fight Alinskyites is to use Alinsky tactics.
The word used was “likely”, not “definitely”. This means most of the time, but not always; that is, there may be exceptions to the rule.
This is not something you can disprove by presenting counter examples. You will have to look at national trends, such as who dominates the House, the Senate, state governorships, and so on.
@Killer Marmot, Chester Draws, et al.,
In the abstract, I agree with you completely. That is, I would love proceed under circumstances where political disagreements could be hashed out among people arguing in good faith. The problem is, as I see it, we have been assuming good faith on the part of people who have none. We are dealing with people who don’t care about votes, if those votes don’t go their way. It’s about power and they are willing to do anything it takes to attain it and maintain it. And when they have it, they will not be content to let some of us live our lives privately with our own beliefs while they run the show. Rather they will do whatever it takes to crush any dissent anywhere. As someone said, “You will be made to care.” The examples of the endgame in other places are legion and need not be listed. (But see the Maduro regime in Venezuela for how things like the law and constitution and will of the people are respected.)
So, the question remains: What do you do when the other side plays dirty and has no intention of surrendering? What are these “thousand weapons?” I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, because I really want to know. I’d be happy to leave the Florida professor alone in his campus office if he’d be willing to leave me alone and not force me or anyone else to bake a cake. Or force me to pretend a male is a female in order to make some mao-ling happy. Or send my kids to shitty schools because it’s unfair to other kids who don’t have a stable, loving two-parent family. Or berate my kids in a college class I’m paying for for the accident of being born with not enough pigment in their skin. It never seems to work out that way, though. They cannot and will not be content to just leave the rest of us alone.
The Antifa goons and their enablers are quite happy to have us act on principle in order to avoid lowering ourselves to their level. It’s easier for them to win that way.
So, again the question: What tactics should be used, if we’re going to eschew the Left’s playbook?
I have to agree with Killer Marmot – we have to practice what we preach on this free speech issue, even for people who are just the worst. Ultimately, if this puts ‘us’ (whatever that means as there is not really a cohesive group of folks who are ‘not left’ we’re a pretty diverse bunch) at a disadvantage, well that says more about them than us. But is we don’t have consistency in our principles, what do we have?
Having said that, if Mr Storey worked for a private university it’s up to them if they fire him. It’s likely he has something in his contract about not bringing the reputation of his employer into disrepute, which he would probably be in breach of. But if he was ever prosecuted for his comments, that would be a direct intrusion on his free speech. Furthermore, if people tried to ‘shut him up’ in other ways, that would also be not on.
So what I’m getting at is I really don’t think free speech extends to a private company being forced to continue to employ him in the face of him being retarded on a public platform. But if he wants to continue twittering, blogging, standing on street corners and shouting, well good luck to him. I’ll defend him 😉
This means most of the time, but not always; that is, there may be exceptions to the rule.
Unfortunately, the historical case is that the “exceptions” are pretty close to equal to the non-“exceptions”; the notion that parties with a moral high ground being likely to get more votes is a fallacy.
You will have to look at national trends, such as who dominates the House, the Senate, state governorships, and so on.
Yes, and “domination” of the house and senate accomplishes precisely nothing if the alleged leadership (as is the case now) is more concerned with being perceived as “principled” nice guys rather than standing up to the assorted “exceptions” on the other side. The reason we have Trump is because he didn’t roll over and play dead as McCain and Romney did, and was unafraid to mix it up with the various reprobates on the left.
State governorships don’t mean a hell of a lot if the legislature is democrat (i.e., NJ), and even if the governor and state houses are of Party A, that doesn’t mean a lot if they get steamrolled by feds of Party B.
As R. Sherman points out, we are not dealing with rational actors who will respond to good faith with good faith, their antics only get more egregious because no one is pushing back. This whole “anti”fa crap, for example, would have been over if the National Guard had been called out as Gov. Reagan did in 1969. Firing people for their thoughts will end when idiots on the left realize it can happen to them too, or you can keep letting the school bully take your lunch money.
Perhaps he lost his temp job because his bosses determined, from the tone and content of his tweet, that it was inappropriate for them to continue to place young students under his tutelage.
Perhaps he had shown, through his tweet, to be a poor choice as a teacher and role model and moral guide for his young charges.
Perhaps choosing the correct people as professors and guides for impressionable young students is exactly and entirely the admins’ role in the organization, and ignoring his tweet would be an abdication of their duties to students and to parents and to their own community.
If I teach Sunday school to kids, but I tweet that Jesus told me to be a pedophile, would you protest the loss of my teaching job because of how it would impede my right to speak freely?
It’s sort of like the hearsay rule. He wasn’t punished so much for saying what he said as for what it revealed about him.
Very much related to the theme of this thread. You see, they care so very much, and are therefore better people.
And in lighter news, two dog rescues – here and here.
It isn’t known at this point whether the dogs voted Republican.
Big dogs lean Republican, small dogs lean Democrat, and all cats are pure Communists. Sorry, cat people.
Big dogs lean Republican, small dogs lean Democrat, and all cats are pure Communists.
That is precisely backwards. Dogs crap wherever they want and leave it to someone else to clean up, can’t be trusted not to eat all their food in one sitting and will starve without someone rationing their food daily, will bark incessantly for no good reason, can’t clean themselves and without constant attention will be perfectly content to wander around filthier than the proverbial hippie, eat poop and vomit, will suck up to anyone with a handout for them, demand constant affirmation from everyone, and are basically wards of the state lacking only EBT cards. Hardcore socialists every last one.
Cats are independent free thinkers, capable of fending for themselves outdoors without leashes and chains, can be left alone for extended periods in a house where they will poop in designated spaces and bury same, eat only enough at one sitting as is needed, are self-cleaning, meow only when there is an issue they wish to call to your attention, will contribute to the household by bringing gifts of food in the form of small animals in various states of disrepair, and do not require constant affirmation but enjoy the company of a trusted few. Conservative/Libertarian.
That is precisely backwards.
Ooh, it’s all kicking off now.
Husband has his priorities right:
” These trainers cost money!”
Husband has his priorities right:
To be fair, a) the SWAT officer is very probably more capable of carrying the woman and child, b) relegating the SWAT officer to carrying bags and shoes would be wrong…
Very much related to the theme of this thread. You see, they care so very much, and are therefore better people.
Perhaps someone ought to tell the left they’re emulating one of their enemies.
Hurricane Harvey has now been revealed as really being a very major concern.
In Texas, an (American) football game got cancelled.
I think bobby b has it right. He wasn’t fired from a job at Jiffy Lube where his opinions and shitty ideas have no impact. He was fired from a job where he is entrusted with educating impressionable young people. That he could show such poor judgment in making such a public statement of assholery calls into question his fitness for the job. Given the nature of the job, it is entirely appropriate to hold teachers and professors to a higher standard of public conduct, whether it’s on their employer’s time or not. It’s not even a question of whether his behavior reflected poorly on the university, it’s simply a question of him clearly being far too stupid to be allowed to teach others.
“Florida man” strikes again. He certainly gets around.
I will say one thing for Florida Man, and yes I am biased, but from what I’ve noticed, Florida Man is generally making the news accompanied by his mug shot or for getting fired. Out on the left coast and a few other places, the kinds of things that get Florida Man fired or arrested are kinds of things those folks put on their resumes or feature in their campaign literature.