So, as I understand it, some chick got accepted into a prestigious college, but a wanker from her old high school, who held a secret grudge, released an audio tape of her practicing witchcraft by uttering the Forbidden Word of Power. Once the authorities at the university heard that, they quickly moved to have her banned and, if possible, burned at the stake.
In all seriousness, I've heard a ton of yelling directed at the young man and deservedly so. He's a swine. However, the lion's share of the blame needs to be directed at the university for participating in this act of superstitious nonsense.
This is stupid. She's not a witch, she doesn't know a Forbidden Word of Power, she doesn't have a lock of your hair, she hasn't sold her soul to the devil and she's not going to turn you into a squirrel. She said a word that is in so much popular music that most people her age probably hear it 30 times a day. The way she said it was not the way a Klansman would say, if there still are any Klansmen around. She said it the way it's used on Twitter, thousands of times a day.
Young girls are going to repeat words they hear in songs. Some young men are going to be unspeakable pigs. However, there is no excuse for our education industry acting like it's the 1400s.
 |
| She probably listens to Jordan Peterson lectures, too. |
10 comments:
Well said.
If there are no magic words, does that mean blasphemy is not a sin?
I just finished reading "Of Mice and Men". He used the word in there. Why do you suppose that is? To push a group of people down, or to accurately reflect the world how it was?
What the book is, is great literature. However, schools are "pausing" on teaching it because of the word. Yet, in "popular" music it is used extensively as KT say. But to suggest that is bad, is to risk being canceled because you are attacking "art" (I guess that's the word).
What word do we use when one race of people is allowed to do something, but claim others can't?
In the last 3-4 months, I was watching a Star Trek. The one with the alien appearing to be Abraham Lincoln. He calls Uhura an unapproved word, but then apologizes. Uhura immediately said there was no need, as people had learned that words can't hurt them.
I just finished reading "Of Mice and Men". He used the word in there. Why do you suppose that is? To push a group of people down, or to accurately reflect the world how it was?
Perhaps the accurately reflect how one group of people pushes another group of people down.
What the book is, is great literature. However, schools are "pausing" on teaching it because of the word. Yet, in "popular" music it is used extensively as KT say. But to suggest that is bad, is to risk being canceled because you are attacking "art" (I guess that's the word).
You seem like you are bright enough to understand that the same word can have different meanings in different contextx. Am I mistaken there?
Thanks for deflecting and not answering.
I will answer. Yes, I can but words used under context. For example, the video that is the center of KT's post, was by context, OBVIOUSLY a playful use of the term among friends. In contrast, the boy saved the video to viciously attack the girl at a future date.
As to the book, there was two people in the book that were mean hateful people. The rest of them were just trying to get through life. The biggest scene in it was of the main character coming in to talk to the black man Crooks, and then a third man coming in. There was no hate, no judgement, no assumption of them being better than Crooks. At first Crooks tells them to go away, but Lennie doesn't. Then Crooks realizes that Lennie is just lonely, and that he is too, so why can't they sit together and talk. That's the story, it isn't about hate.
So if you can see that a word has different meanings in context, and I can see that words have different meaning in context... Why can't a University, a society, and a mean-spirited boy see that words have different meaning in context?
Mostly Nothing,
Thanks for deflecting and not answering.
I will answer. Yes, I can but words used under context. For example, the video that is the center of KT's post, was by context, OBVIOUSLY a playful use of the term among friends. In contrast, the boy saved the video to viciously attack the girl at a future date.
As to the book, there was two people in the book that were mean hateful people. The rest of them were just trying to get through life. The biggest scene in it was of the main character coming in to talk to the black man Crooks, and then a third man coming in. There was no hate, no judgement, no assumption of them being better than Crooks. At first Crooks tells them to go away, but Lennie doesn't. Then Crooks realizes that Lennie is just lonely, and that he is too, so why can't they sit together and talk. That's the story, it isn't about hate.
So if you can see that a word has different meanings in context, and I can see that words have different meaning in context... Why can't a University, a society, and a mean-spirited boy see that words have different meaning in context?
Sometimes I find it more productive to respond indirectly as opposed to using a direct confrontation. If we can establish how we agree, then that limits a clarifies the disagreements. That's not a deflection.
Regarding Of Mice and Men, or Huckleberry Finn, or any of a number of other works of great literature, I agree that they need to be preserved and discussed, and I don't think there can be a general rule about the appropriate age level/environment for so doing (I hope we agree there is no issue with using these books at the college level, and that we don't want to use them at the first-grade level). If you teach 95+% of the same notions using other great works that we have, that do not happen to have words that are regarded as hurtful, then I don't see the problem switching to the less incendiary works.
I find it curious that you think people have to be able to make insults and demean other people when they are kidding around. I taught my kids to be better than that. It's unfortunate this young lady is learning the lesson in this fashion, but that blame goes on Grove's parents.
Did you read the Times piece that the Daily Wire linked to? Galligan saved the video after having had several complaints about the usage of this word being ignored. It can not simultaneously be true that the frequent usage of the word in the Loudoun county schools was acceptable and should not have been corrected, and that Galligan posted a video so inflammatory that it cost Groves her future. Do you think the Loudoun school failed Galligan by not taking this usage more seriously?
Further, the post by Galligan was in response to what he perceived as her hypocrisy in her response to George Floyd, a link that the Daily Wire fails to convey in it's coverage. There was no evidence presented in either article that Galligan thought Grove's admission would be affected.
Did the society/The University of Tennessee over-react? Perhaps. Standards are changing, and when there is change, some people will be made more uncomfortable.
I had not heard of the Floyd angle. So I went to read some on it.
So, Groves shows a change in thinking, in a positive way. Is it sincere? We don't know. But it seems that Galligan is hate filled and vindictive. She may have grown and matured, he appears not to have.
Is there any point at which forgiveness can enter into the equation?
As an aside, if what Galligan says is true that the slur is common in the school, then there are a lot of problems in that school. Starting with the administration. I confess that I don't know much about the local school district here. I learned enough when my oldest was 4, and found a private school immediately. I have no regrets. They got good educations, and went on to good Universities, albeit expensive. Hamile University which is quite progressive but also rather level headed and fair.
I agree Galligan is anger-filled and wanted a show of remorse, and possibly retribution. He's been in the same classes as Groves for over three years, and since she was head cheerleader, he probably knows who she has been. I don't think he had any way of knowing that she would lose her admission to UoT.
I went to a private and public elementary schools and a private high school, and they weren't different in terms of racial bias, just in racial make-up. Perhaps the school you found for your daughter was better in that regard. My kids went to public school, and have moved on with appropriate degrees of success.
Well, sons. 2 of them.
The grade school they went to was pretty homogeneous, with just a few minorities, and about 110-120 students K-8. But the high school was very mixed. They brought in many kids from China as a study abroad. They also did a lot of scholarships, pulling out of North Minneapolis. That being the area that has gun fire every night, to the tune of 1600+ shots fired in the month after Floyd. North Minneapolis has been completely abandoned by politicians. The DFL has them wrapped around their fingers, but treat them as "less than" people.
My son would often drive some of the freshmen and sophomore boys home after football practice or games if the coach asked him. The school was about 10 miles east of North Minneapolis and about 16 miles west of our house. I don't remember any Native Americans, but most other races were represented.
The big thing the private school has over the public school, is good behavior is expected and bad behavior is not tolerated. I remember when a really smart kid from the grade school went on to freshman year at the public high school here in my school district. His parents used open enrollment to get him into the school instead of being stuck in the St Paul School District. He was shocked that the kids ignored the teacher and the culture shock. He probably could have survived St Paul Schools, but excelled at this high school.
If you want a follow on Twitter of a man who is making a difference and walks the walk. Look up Reverend Tim Christopher. Amazing guy. He takes
all politicians to task. https://shepherdsworksmn.org/team. His one fault, is he's a Packer fan. Other than that, he should be Governor of Minnesota.
Mostly Nothing,
Thanks for the interesting take, and the recommendation.
Post a Comment