All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Reading that NYT article it's kind of telling that Mister Mets refused to excerpt this big section. It's really interesting what he selected and editorialized on this message board:

The use of the slur by a Heritage High School student was not shocking, many said. The surprise, instead, was that Ms. Groves was being punished for behavior that had long been tolerated.

A ‘hostile learning environment’

Leesburg, the county seat of Loudoun County, lies just across the Potomac River from Maryland, about an hour’s drive from Washington. It was the site of an early Civil War battle, and slave auctions were once held on the courthouse grounds, where a statue of a Confederate soldier stood for more than a century until it was removed in July.

The Loudoun County suburbs are among the wealthiest in the nation, and the schools consistently rank among the top in the state. Last fall, according to the Virginia Department of Education, the student body at Heritage High was about half white, 20 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian-American and 8 percent Black, with another 6 percent who are mixed race.

In interviews, current and former students of color described an environment rife with racial insensitivity, including casual uses of slurs.

A report commissioned last year by the school district documented a pattern of school leaders ignoring the widespread use of racial slurs by both students and teachers, fostering a “growing sense of despair” among students of color, some of whom faced disproportionate disciplinary measures compared with white students.

“It is shocking the extent to which students report the use of the N-word as the prevailing concern,” the report said. School system employees also had a “low level of racial consciousness and racial literacy,” while a lack of repercussions for hurtful language forced students into a “hostile learning environment,” it said.

So yeah "Lazarus and Dives"...asking for second chances at the ultimate moment when nothing you did leading up to it made you re-examine your life.

For his role, Mr. Galligan said he had no regrets. “If I never posted that video, nothing would have ever happened,” he said. And because the internet never forgets, the clip will always be available to watch.

“I’m going to remind myself, you started something,” he said with satisfaction. “You taught someone a lesson.”

Some visual aid of the energy on Mr. Galligan:



...
...
...

Let me say that, all things being equal, I'd agree that the reaction to Groves was excessive but in a world that so routinely punishes and marginalizes, so tacitly enables and oppresses non-white students, and places so many barriers and hoops on their path to success, on their careers and so on...I cannot in any way string a violin larger than points between my thumbnail and my thumb, about this kind of situation.

Since white people have so much power and privilege, the right way is to be compassionate to others the way you expect them to be in return. So scrub of all drug charges and possessions, compensate people for the degradation they experienced, reform the police and so on, provide better services to minority neighborhoods make them feel as safe and protected as white neighborhoods. If you do that, if you can show you can do that, if you are willing to offer African-Americans the same level of second chances as this girl does (I guarantee after this NYT sob story, there's going to be someone who calls the Groves family and tell them they'll help their daughter and so on), then there won't be need of this kind of accountability (which in any case isn't always permanent since as Galligan noted his original attempts to make it known didn't go anywhere).

[Powerboy]

Your understanding of what happened to Ahmed Mohamed... I'll allow you to review the timeline.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/09/16/ahmed-mohamed/

Sounds like a huge misunderstanding and that even the police were unsure what they should do.

I take your point that his ethnicity is what caused him to not be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Mister Mets]

The thing I question here is the timing. Why post the thing about her saying the N word at a time when she has come out in favor of Black Lives Matter which would indicate a pretty drastic change of heart? It kind of falls into "When you were fourteen...". I'm going to hold onto it and, for revenge, use it at a time it makes the least sense to use it when her attitude has done a 180. Or maybe post a positive, impressed that a tragedy like this may have shocked her into changing her opinions.

I know people who are liberal on every issue and yet some of them still were defending Brett Kavanaugh if only in the sense of saying, "Good night, are we going to condemn people for anything they ever said or did in their entire lives, even if they were stupid kids, with no regard for who they later become and what they think later?" Apparently so.

That's a fair point.

This seems likely to backfire. It just doesn't seem that this is likely to encourage anyone to support black lives matter.

See, no offense, but if anything you should blame yourself for her being kicked out of that school.

It's not just another way to say "person", it is definitely a slur, no one should ever say it. The end. Any time you profess any other opinion, you are doing a disservice to any impressionable person who might be influenced by that very flawed perspective.

You know it's not "just another way to say person", which is why you yourself aren't just going around using it in place of the word person. And again, you're not helping the situation at all to put that idea out there in any context.

I believe that we should not create permission structures for people to be wrong, and that when we think someone is mistaken, we should say so.

I did so here. I did say that what she did was stupid.

As for whether it's a slur in every context, that gets a little bit messier. There was a debate in academic circles about whether definitions should be prescriptive rather than descriptive. I was generally persuaded by the argument that analysis should be descriptive, but there seems to have emerged a contrary view that it should be prescriptive based on particular political standards. This can lead to problems when others start insisting on having this level of power. Should donors start insisting universities penalize any student who said something bad about industry? Should religious voters interpret universities as approving of every online statement some high school atheist who got accepted to the university has ever made, some of which are likely to be disrespectful?

Maybe they were black? Do you think they have a right to be offended then?

There is the difference between having the right to be offended, and people listening to their demands about rescinding a college acceptance letter.

[Mister Mets]

No. Nobody "deserves" anything outside of basic human rights. Especially not someone who isn't prepared to face the ramifications of hate speech.

Because white entitlement is all about thinking we "deserve" something, regardless of if we've done someting that should disqualify us.

Not surprised you fail to understand that. And defend it, especially given, again, the example of Stephen Miller. Who when mentioned, you never fail to rush to the defensive. For... some reason.

Some people are wrong and inconsistent, failing to consider the implications of their views. That's the reason.

Reading that NYT article it's kind of telling that Mister Mets refused to excerpt this big section. It's really interesting what he selected and editorialized on this message board:



So yeah "Lazarus and Dives"...asking for second chances at the ultimate moment when nothing you did leading up to it made you re-examine your life.



Some visual aid of the energy on Mr. Galligan:



...
...
...

Let me say that, all things being equal, I'd agree that the reaction to Groves was excessive but in a world that so routinely punishes and marginalizes, so tacitly enables and oppresses non-white students, and places so many barriers and hoops on their path to success, on their careers and so on...I cannot in any way string a violin larger than points between my thumbnail and my thumb, about this kind of situation.

Since white people have so much power and privilege, the right way is to be compassionate to others the way you expect them to be in return. So scrub of all drug charges and possessions, compensate people for the degradation they experienced, reform the police and so on, provide better services to minority neighborhoods make them feel as safe and protected as white neighborhoods. If you do that, if you can show you can do that, if you are willing to offer African-Americans the same level of second chances as this girl does (I guarantee after this NYT sob story, there's going to be someone who calls the Groves family and tell them they'll help their daughter and so on), then there won't be need of this kind of accountability (which in any case isn't always permanent since as Galligan noted his original attempts to make it known didn't go anywhere).

If the reaction was excessive, that seems to be the important thing. It doesn't seem that we can use this as an opportunity to springboard to other discussions about equity if we don't first acknowledge that part.

It also doesn't seem to be a winning political issue to say that one side is wrong on the particular, but that this isn't worth worrying about because some people have violated clearly defined laws and been penalized. If anything this undercuts the idea that we should be lenient to teenage minors who break laws if we argue that it is sensible to use what a teenage minor said on a private conversation two years later to kick her out of a college. But it's also not going to persuade people to join your side.

[Kirby101]

There is the difference between having the right to be offended, and people listening to their demands about rescinding a college acceptance letter.

First your response to me asking if the U of Tenn is "the left"? You say;

The people making the phone calls to demand the university rescind admission would generally be to the left.

Now when I ask about the people complaining being black you say it is about the University.

Please keep your apologetics straight.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

...

You didn't offer an explanation as to why you didn't excerpt the part in the NYT article which points out that racism is endemic and systemic at Leesford at that school and most non-white students were only surprised that Groves faced actual legit consequences.

Why did you not acknowledge this, Mister Mets?

Why editorialize a NYT article that was even and many-sided, into a self-pitying discourse around one white girl?

Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?

[numberthirty]

Noticed this in the piece in question. Seemed like it was worth pointing out...

One of Ms. Groves’s friends, who is Black, said Ms. Groves had personally apologized for the video long before it went viral. Once it did in June, the friend defended Ms. Groves online, prompting criticism from strangers and fellow students. “We’re supposed to educate people,” she wrote in a Snapchat post, “not ruin their lives all because you want to feel a sense of empowerment.”

[Kirby101]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but it is pretty outrageous.

Video Shows Black 14-Year-Old Falsely Accused of Theft in a SoHo Hote

I see another poor white girl about to get her life disrupted.

[Kirby101]

Why do people keep voting for people who harm them?

Kentucky Is Hurting as Its Senators Limit or Oppose Federal Aid

I never completely understood working people voting for a Party that constantly sides with the Rich and Powerful to their detrimen

[Mister Mets]

You didn't offer an explanation as to why you didn't excerpt the part in the NYT article which points out that racism is endemic and systemic at Leesford at that school and most non-white students were only surprised that Groves faced actual legit consequences.

Why did you not acknowledge this, Mister Mets?

Why editorialize a NYT article that was even and many-sided, into a self-pitying discourse around one white girl?

Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?

There's no obligation to respond to every part of a post.

The article was about a white girl not going to a particular college because of something she said a few years earlier that someone else waited to release at a moment of maximum impact. It gets to relevant questions about whether this is something we should welcome. So I'm going to focus on that.

What did you find self-pitying in it?

As for why I didn't quote every part of an article, part of is that there is a finite amount of space. I did also provide a link to the article for anyone interested in the whole thing.

I don't really know enough about the racism being endemic and systemic at the high school to have an opinion on that part. What kind of qualitative measures do they use to assess that? It also seems a separate question from the decision of the university.

How am I abusing your patience? You're in agreement with me that the reaction was excessive.

[Mister Mets]

First your response to me asking if the U of Tenn is "the left"? You say;



Now when I ask about the people complaining being black you say it is about the University.

Please keep your apologetics straight.

I said in the first post that it was a "college admissions story that reveals a lot about the attitude on the left." I said, "this seems excessive, and inconsistent with the idea that we should generous about the mistakes made by children."

My comments about "the left" weren't mainly about the university, but more about the people calling for the university to rescind admission, as well as anyone who thinks it's a proportionate response.

I don't recall saying anything about left-wing college administrators, or suggesting that the only progressives mentioned were representatives of the university.

[Robotman]

Why do people keep voting for people who harm them?

Kentucky Is Hurting as Its Senators Limit or Oppose Federal Aid

I never completely understood working people voting for a Party that constantly sides with the Rich and Powerful to their detrimen

mainly because the opposition is pro-choice and also they've been told that the only thing keeping Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists from burning down their town is strong Republican leadership.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There's no obligation to respond to every part of a post.

There's a norm and a social expectation that you don't misrepresent the post or mis-contextualize a post. I have proven that you in fact have done just that.

The article was about a white girl not going to a particular college because of something she said a few years earlier that someone else waited to release at a moment of maximum impact.

It was about the fact that it was a protest responding to an actual daily issue at Leesford, one that everyone in that community affirmed existed.

What did you find self-pitying in it?

Because you center everything around Groves as if that was the protagonist of reality, when the NYT article focuses on both and indeed gives Galligan the first and last word.

I don't really know enough about the racism being endemic and systemic at the high school to have an opinion on that part.

That was mentioned and covered in the article itself.

You're in agreement with me that the reaction was excessive.

The phrase "other things being equal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus) is a universally recognized qualifier that the clause succeeding it, ought to be considered pure rhetoric and not completely in literal terms.

In the actual context of Leesford it's valid.

Boycotting goods and products belonging to someone for instance, or insulting and caricaturing in power, would, ceteris paribus, be considered rude in the abstract. But given a context (i.e. Ireland, India, South Africa among other places) it can have validity, power, and legitimacy as can satire or jokes at a politician and so on.

[DrNewGod]

mainly because the opposition is pro-choice and also they've been told that the only thing keeping Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists from burning down their town is strong Republican leadership.

Agreed Robotman. NPR had a piece back in 2017 about rural Americans getting hammered by Trump's policies, but viewing it as taking one for the christian team in order to keep immigrants out, reshore manufacturing, and save the well-paying fossil-fuel industries.

[Mister Mets]

There's a norm and a social expectation that you don't misrepresent the post or mis-contextualize a post. I have proven that you in fact have done just that.

I don't believe that I failed to mis-contextualize the post. At no point did I indicate that there was no problem with racism at the high school.

It was about the fact that it was a protest responding to an actual daily issue at Leesford, one that everyone in that community affirmed existed.

The title was "A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning"

The subheading was "A white high school student withdrew from her chosen college after a three-second video caused an uproar online. The classmate who shared it publicly has no regrets."

If the article was primarily about the racism in a high school, the writer and/ or editor did a piss-poor job clarifying that.

It is also noteworthy that much of the focus was on the pressure to the university, rather than to the college.

Because you center everything around Groves as if that was the protagonist of reality, when the NYT article focuses on both and indeed gives Galligan the first and last word.

I've mentioned Galligan several times. In my first post, I wrote "A student pissed off about it holds it onto it until a moment in which he can inflict maximum damage." and "Conservative writer Seth Mandel thinks the guy who waited to report the news is being blamed too much."

I don't favor what he did, but he's a young man, so I'd prefer to focus on clearheaded adults, who should be held to a higher standard.

That was mentioned and covered in the article itself.

They're vague on specifics, which makes sense because it's one article that isn't about quantitatively measuring the level of racism in a particular high school.

The phrase "other things being equal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus) is a universally recognized qualifier that the clause succeeding it, ought to be considered pure rhetoric and not completely in literal terms.

In the actual context of Leesford it's valid.

Boycotting goods and products belonging to someone for instance, or insulting and caricaturing in power, would, ceteris paribus, be considered rude in the abstract. But given a context (i.e. Ireland, India, South Africa among other places) it can have validity, power, and legitimacy as can satire or jokes at a politician and so on.

In the context of your comment, it seemed you agreed that it was an overreaction, but you also thought it wasn't a big deal.

If it was rhetoric and not meant to be taken literally, that's my misunderstanding, although that's inevitable in political discussions with difference frames of reference, where people aren't intending to be taken literally.