Not Entirely Similar
For those with an interest in recent history, and indeed surrealism, a catalogue of progressive cancel culture.
Among the sins punished with both swiftness and eyebrow-raising severity – questioning the benefits of rioting; questioning overt racial favouritism at the University of California, Los Angeles; saying that George Floyd wasn’t actually a moral exemplar; liking tweets in support of Donald Trump; questioning the methods of Black Lives Matter; showing the 1965 film of Laurence Olivier’s Othello to students at the University of Michigan; and teaching students of Chinese how to pronounce Chinese words.
And regarding the above, this:
And also, from recent comments, this by Mr Wanye Burkett:
Maybe the principle here is that this is so unbecoming of a public school teacher [to publicly exult in the murder of someone with different political views] that not only should they lose this specific job, but maybe they shouldn’t work in another public school ever again. Maybe they’re just not suited for that kind of work.
That’s not punitive. That’s much more logical, instrumental. The idea in this latter case is that people have revealed themselves to be unsuited for a particular kind of employment.
Readers may wish to ponder whether the sins mentioned above – expressing doubts about rioting, or teaching Chinese pronunciation to students of Chinese – exist on the same level of inaptness as, say, a public-school teacher showing ten-year-olds shockingly graphic video of a man being shot in the neck, and killed, in front of his family, and showing that footage repeatedly, “numerous times,” while hectoring those same ten-year-olds on the merits of so-called “anti-fascism.”
Answers on a postcard, please.
Update, via the comments:
Regarding the example immediately above, John D adds,
It does, I think, invite questions as to the vetting of public school educators and the kinds of personalities the job seems to attract in high concentrations. It also invites questions as to what kind of environment, what kind of workplace assumptions, might make a teacher of ten-year-olds think that such behaviour would be considered acceptable.
I mean, if nothing else, and even absent any conventional moral inhibition, you’d think that one of the obvious considerations for a teacher of ten-year-olds might at least be the assumption that parents will find out. In this case, when their children arrive home bewildered and distressed. And to therefore behave accordingly. And yet.
Update 2:
Regarding this,
Liz adds,
Or sufficiently sympathetic, politically, to not mind too much, or maybe just accustomed to politicised overreach and inapt behaviour in general. Those would seem to be among the more obvious inferences. And as so often, it appears that shocked parents, rather than colleagues, were the ones to object.
On the subject of parents being shocked to discover, belatedly, what their children are actually being taught, these three incidents came to mind. Among many others. Note, in the third link, the casual invention of a fake curriculum – yes, a fake curriculum – so as to deceive any curious parents.
And all while insisting, “This is not being deceitful.”
In light of which, the “anti-fascist” snuff-video session mentioned above doesn’t exactly scream anomaly or aberration, or some unfortunate misreading of the room, so much as a ratcheting upwards.
With a hat-tip to Darleen.
Use of the buttons below is encouraged and appreciated.
Request For Opinion: This transcript allegedly shows text comms between Tyler Robinson and his “roommate.”
Some commenters on twiXer said it didn’t sound like how a couple of dudes would speak to each other in chat. It sounds too contrived. Too formal. Sentences well-formed and formal. So they say it’s a fabrication by the FBI.
They’re right that it sounds contrived. OTOH, wouldn’t the FBI have the perspicacity to fabricate something that looks more “chatty”? Robinson was a high-IQ kid, living the quirk life, so maybe his communication style was overly formal.
Please advise.
I suppose I should be surprised, but experience has taught me otherwise.
I have on occasion been asked why I seem to take a dim view of teachers in general, and leftist teachers in particular, which increasingly amounts to much the same thing. The post above, and the links within it, may help on that front.
Setting aside the eye-widening particulars on display – the sheer fucking hubris, to borrow a phrase – I’ve often been struck by the presumption of the type, the casual, practised overreach. Even in secondary school, the discernibly left-leaning teachers seemed to regard their job – their real job – as one of social engineering, of making children comply with their own, rather weird worldview.
As if conveying the particulars of their supposed field were insufficiently statusful, or a side-gig, or a pretext for some ham-fisted political project, for which they showed much greater enthusiasm, and in which they were stars of the drama.
Being at the time a sweaty teen, I didn’t have a clear idea of what exactly was so obnoxious about it, or what the motives might be. But the air of vanity and overreach, of pushing against propriety, of entitlement, was hard to miss.
I should add that, as a sweaty teen, what struck me first was the personality type, the psychology in play. The politics became apparent later. Which I suppose might be a data point for the idea that politics is to a very large degree a function of personality.
Re 505 Karen Drive:
No mention if she had any patients. Real curious if there might possibly be other sources of funding as a consultant.