Political Correctness

[BobK]

At this point I'm trying to discover just what it is that Woody Hart (the teacher in question) actually said.

According to the Daily Mail ():

Woody Hart told his eighth-grade history class, 'When you hang one black person, you have to hang them all. That is equality,' according to a complaint filed by student Tyler McIntyre's parents, Victoria and Tyrie McIntyre.

The Sacramento Bee says:

Here’s what I said: ‘If you hang black people in the South, that means that you hang any black person who comes from outside the state.’

Digging a little further we find this:

During the investigation, the teacher told administrators that statement was made in the context of if people went to the South to promote equal rights for African-Americans, the Southerners would respond, “We treat them all equally. We hang them.”

Now unsavory as it may be, that's exactly what I'd have expected to hear in the Jim Crow South.

Could the media be twisting words again to stoke the racial tension flames again?

Nah, never happen.
/sarcasm for the last sentence, for those who need it

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I never said you said they were opposed to the "entire" anything and you are similarly invited to point out where I said that. I'm just saying that the parents were opposed to the teacher using what they saw as racist language according to the text of their complaint and asked him to stop and for their kid to be removed. No censorship or attempt to sack the teacher was mentioned, nor did they seem to be against the child being educated about slavery.

Then clearly something was misunderstood from your posts and mine that wasn't rectified, would have saved some time...

Damned right I'm going to dismiss any conjecture if there's no evidence to back it up. It sounds to me that this history teacher had history of his own with the teaching staff though. Whether that's fair or not it influenced their decision to discipline him in the second incident.

There is circumstantial evidence to back it up, the parents filed a complaint about a history teacher who told students how blacks and later African-Americans were treated during that time. It's a factual thing he taught, yet despite that, there was still offense to the point of a complaint. Then he is fired by the school for setting up a confederate flag and supposedly being labeled and someone promoting hate from the first article you presented by the district. Yet when you read the context that he did it while doing so with a union flag and teaching Civil war that week...I find it hard to see what he did wrong and how the parents aren't overly insensitive. Thus not conjecture, so actually try and frame it as such rather than otherwise.

If this is a thread about political correctness then I'm not sure whether the school staff were sacking the teacher because of PC or because he rubbed them up the wrong way. However there's nothing to suggest that the kid who moved classes is having his education harmed in any way by not being taught by this teacher and I'm outright dismissing the suggestion that it has.

Does it have to be one way or the other? If the school and/or district feels they need to be PC to the point those who aren't, are on the outside looking in rather quickly that is pretty bad. As for being harmed I've already said, being taught that also isn't harmful staying or going. What I also said is any moment a person takes offense to how some teaches facts of history they are doing intellectual harm to themselves. The idea of some sort of ignorance to what they could have been taught has no harm done is harmful if they are learning a portion of history in a sugar coated manner. I feel perhaps there is more missing to the story or the school really is this critical.

 

[UKMikey]

At this point I'm trying to discover just what it is that Woody Hart (the teacher in question) actually said.

According to the Daily Mail ():



The Sacramento Bee says:

Digging a little further we find this:

Now unsavory as it may be, that's exactly what I'd have expected to hear in the Jim Crow South.

Could the media be twisting words again to stoke the racial tension flames again?

Nah, never happen.
/sarcasm for the last sentence, for those who need it

I think we already covered all of this in the previous posts. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the teacher gave the same explanation to his students at the time of the lesson or did he just drop it in out of thin air until administrators chased him for an explanation?

 

[BobK]

I think we already covered all of this in the previous posts. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the teacher gave the same explanation to his students at the time of the lesson or did he just drop it in out of thin air until administrators chased him for an explanation?

I'm not sure either, to be honest, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it. Consider that he'd been teaching for a long time; I doubt he suddenly became racist last fall but I concede it's possible. Consider furthermore that the media seems to have been presenting racial issues in a less than straightforward matter lately.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apparently it's just not good enough to be a senior citizen and on the cover of SI with your two daughters according to CNN's Peggy Drexler, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Now it's only a step forward if she's both in her 60's and old and wrinkly. Oh, and while you're at it SI, please stop teaching girls that getting a magazine spread is the validation they need to carry on.

#oldanduglySIcover2018ftw

 

[fatkrakr]

Apparently it's just not good enough to be a senior citizen and on the cover of SI with your two daughters according to CNN's Peggy Drexler, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Now it's only a step forward if she's both in her 60's and old and wrinkly. Oh, and while you're at it SI, please stop teaching girls that getting a magazine spread is the validation they need to carry on.

#oldanduglySIcover2018ftw

 

[BobK]

CNN

There's the problem, right there.

 

[JKgo]

Apparently it's just not good enough to be a senior citizen and on the cover of SI with your two daughters according to CNN's Peggy Drexler, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Now it's only a step forward if she's both in her 60's and old and wrinkly. Oh, and while you're at it SI, please stop teaching girls that getting a magazine spread is the validation they need to carry on.

#oldanduglySIcover2018ftw

...Holy hell, she's 63?! If they insist there was no Photoshop involved in that image, I'm going on a rampage. Or to a nearest store to buy the mag...

 

[Johnnypenso]

...Holy hell, she's 63?! If they insist there was no Photoshop involved in that image, I'm going on a rampage. Or to a nearest store to buy the mag...

I think the Photoshop was done in real life on her face but still...

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/entertainment/adele-beyonce-racism/index.html
When whitey wins, it must be racism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/entertainment/adele-beyonce-racism/index.html
When whitey wins, it must be racism.

A quick google tells me he's a failed congressman who I've still never heard of. So a news site wrote an op-ed about his claims... and ultimately disagreed with them. Not much to discuss, surely?

 

[JKgo]

....Uh, so, uh, Adele won something? Sorry, couldn't really care even if I tried. {shrugs shoulders} Oh, The Grammys? Oh, okay. She won it over Beyonce? Okay.

Haven't heard either of the albums in question. Not interested. One of the songs I really, really hate happens to be Beyonce's Single Lady so yeah, there's that too.

 

[polysmut]

....Uh, so, uh, Adele won something? Sorry, couldn't really care even if I tried. {shrugs shoulders} Oh, The Grammys? Oh, okay. She won it over Beyonce? Okay.

Haven't heard either of the albums in question. Not interested. One of the songs I really, really hate happens to be Beyonce's Single Lady so yeah, there's that too.

Was there some subtext there about political correctness?

 

[JKgo]

Was there some subtext there about political correctness?

...Nope.

Truth be told, whether there was racism involved or not in the selection of Adele's work over Beyonce's, I don't see much "subtext" about political correctness here. Ah!! Probably - just maybe - a lady with a fuller figure was favored because.... uh, you know, discrimination against not-slim people are no good. Or something.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/entertainment/adele-beyonce-racism/index.html
When whitey wins, it must be racism.

What the....even her "black friends" comment came under scrutiny. What is going on?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

What the....even her "black friends" comment came under scrutiny. What is going on?!

It was reported, it was hardly "under scrutiny". You're seeing an emphasis that wasn't made, imo.

 

[Johnnypenso]

...Nope.

Truth be told, whether there was racism involved or not in the selection of Adele's work over Beyonce's, I don't see much "subtext" about political correctness here. Ah!! Probably - just maybe - a lady with a fuller figure was favored because.... uh, you know, discrimination against not-slim people are no good. Or something.

IMO the political correctness is having to have the discussion in the first place. There is zero direct evidence of any actual racism, and this is the type of subtle, passive aggressive trolling that CNN and others are very good at. You might as well have a discussion about why no midgets won awards, or why lesbians/transgendered males/transgendered females/Asians/old people/[insert any group here] didn't win in a secret ballot popularity contest in direct relation to their portion of the population. It's how CNN, and others, keep racism and other elements of their agenda alive, by continuing to discuss and raise issues, even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of the issue in question being relevant.

 

[polysmut]

...Nope.

Truth be told, whether there was racism involved or not in the selection of Adele's work over Beyonce's, I don't see much "subtext" about political correctness here. Ah!! Probably - just maybe - a lady with a fuller figure was favored because.... uh, you know, discrimination against not-slim people are no good. Or something.

I just wondered what I'd missed as to why it was in the political correctness thread. I tend to read more than I post & wasn't sure if I was following the narrative properly.

 

[TenEightyOne]

IMO the political correctness is having to have the discussion in the first place.

The discussion didn't have to be had, I think we agree on that. You'd surely accept that award ceremonies are in the spotlight somewhat after the whole Oscars hoo-ha, no?

There is zero direct evidence of any actual racism

Which, strangely, is the conclusion of that very article. They don't even find indirect evidence.

and this is the type of subtle, passive aggressive trolling that CNN and others are very good at.

That seems to speak to your own bias rather than any bias in reporting the man's claims.

You might as well have a discussion about why no midgets won awards, or why lesbians/transgendered males/transgendered females/Asians/old people/[insert any group here] didn't win in a secret ballot popularity contest in direct relation to their portion of the population.

Midgets have a naturally lower proportion, surely? CNN didn't have that discussion though... I don't think that featured in the gentleman's claims so I don't see the relevance.

It's how CNN, and others, keep racism and other elements of their agenda alive

Are you saying that racism should be off the agenda? Wow.

even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of the issue in question being relevant.

Ooh, you should keep away from 24H news if you dislike irrelevancy. Of course, that's your own subjective view I guess.

 

[JKgo]

IMO the political correctness is having to have the discussion in the first place. There is zero direct evidence of any actual racism, and this is the type of subtle, passive aggressive trolling that CNN and others are very good at. You might as well have a discussion about why no midgets won awards, or why lesbians/transgendered males/transgendered females/Asians/old people/[insert any group here] didn't win in a secret ballot popularity contest in direct relation to their portion of the population. It's how CNN, and others, keep racism and other elements of their agenda alive, by continuing to discuss and raise issues, even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of the issue in question being relevant.

...That is certainly one way of looking at it. Honestly, if it won't for the links you guys put up here, I would've never consciously checked out CNN's articles. At all. As for all the passive-aggressive thingymajigy.... hey, whatever draws in their target demographics, right?

Here's an alternate theory on why Her Beyonce-ness didn't win a Gramophone this year.

She has won it WAY TOO MANY TIMES. Let other, poorer, paler artists win something every once in a while...

 

[Northstar]

Are you saying that racism should be off the agenda? Wow.

In a way, it should.

Spoiler: Cautionary tale told to pre-schoolers that many adults should be re familiarized with

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Cross being burned on a black persons lawn = Report

White singer winning an award over a black one = No (unless it's Iggy Azaela as she shouldn't be encouraged)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Cross being burned on a black persons lawn = Report

White singer winning an award over a black one = No (unless it's Iggy Azaela as she shouldn't be encouraged)

I see your point... but where do you draw the line? Why shouldn't CNN write a negative article about this guy's views (which they did)? Not reporting accusations of racism because they don't seem racist enough certainly isn't the way to go. Nor is saying that news sites can't publish clear opinion pieces. Eventually you end up with subjective censorship that denies the reader's own critical abilities and insults their intelligence.

 

[Northstar]

I see your point... but where do you draw the line?

You don't draw any line, you use journalism.

You look at the story and what's behind it. You look at the claims, you look at the evidence and you try coming to an impartial conclusion.

CNN didn't do that though, they produced a provocative headline and tried making a big story out of someone's baseless opinion. I guess perhaps my issues are more fir for the Journalism thread.

 

[polysmut]

I guess perhaps my issues are more fir for the Journalism thread.

If you have anything for that thread then I will shamelessly promote the idea of posting there.

I started that thread a while ago because I wanted to read intelligent GTP debates about journalism.

There seems to be a belief around the forums that the OP owns threads & also should police them. I don't agree with that & I haven't created then forgotten the thread. I'm reading it as actively as I always hoped to but don't intend ever to claim ownership.

To reiterate: please discuss journalism, there's a thread for it, I'm keen to see the thread used.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't draw any line, you use journalism.

You look at the story and what's behind it. You look at the claims, you look at the evidence and you try coming to an impartial conclusion.

We must have read different stories - the journalist clearly didn't agree with the activist's claim.

CNN didn't do that though, they produced a provocative headline...

Not really, unless a question mark means something else to you?

... and tried making a big story out of someone's baseless opinion.

A lot of journalism is the representation of opinions, this story was no different.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not much to discuss, surely?

Who cares? It's an opportunity to bash political correctness!

 

[Johnnypenso]

The discussion didn't have to be had, I think we agree on that. You'd surely accept that award ceremonies are in the spotlight somewhat after the whole Oscars hoo-ha, no?

The #Oscarssowhite was a load of nonsense as well. Nonsense begetting nonsense is nonsense.

Which, strangely, is the conclusion of that very article. They don't even find indirect evidence.

In other words, there is no story, so why run the story?

That seems to speak to your own bias rather than any bias in reporting the man's claims.

I call em' as a I see em'. Also contained in that piece, is a link to another CNN story from a couple of days ago entitled Do the Grammys Also Have a Race Problem?

Midgets have a naturally lower proportion, surely? CNN didn't have that discussion though... I don't think that featured in the gentleman's claims so I don't see the relevance.

It's not featured, nor are any other the other examples, because they don't fit the agenda.

Are you saying that racism should be off the agenda? Wow.

Basically yes, because to me, an agenda implies that you're going to run clickbait headline pieces like this one, alluding to racism where none exists. Try reporting on the real, provable incidents of racism instead of crying wolf when secret popularity contests don't go your way (but in reality they do).

Who cares? It's an opportunity to bash political correctness!

Why would someone not bash political correctness?

 

[UKMikey]

I thought political correctness was where society started bashing an individual or organisation because of their views. Apparently it's all about individuals moaning about stories whose subjects they don't like on the internet though.

 

[Com Fox]

Political Correctness is just the desire to say things so people can't be politically offended. Phrases like Happy Holidays came from Political Correctness.

I honestly don't care if people want to be politically correct BUT I do have a problem with people trying to force people to be politically correct or people so up tight about political correctness that everything not "politically correct" is a massive sin. This is why Political Correctness is such an issue and a topic that riles people up.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I thought political correctness was where society started bashing an individual or organisation because of their views. Apparently it's all about individuals moaning about stories whose subjects they don't like on the internet though.

Google is your friend.