At this point if anyone ever brings up religion to me outside of work, I’m just gonna shit on it. Tolerating religion is morally bad and religion should be as taboo as smoking.
Religion is like a penis. You can do whatever you want with it at home, but don’t go waving it in people’s faces, and especially keep it away from children.
Would you be ok with people being Nazis at home? If someone commits to an ideology at home, it affects their entire personality/interactions. I’d argue this is a form of tolerance which is bad.
Would you be ok with surveilling everyone to make sure they are not Nazis? While I am uncomfortable with the knowledge that there are some people out there who are Nazis in secret, that is still much better than them feeling comfortable enough to be Nazis in the open.
Also I would prefer even Nazis marauding in the streets to universal surveillance, which for me at least is hardly imaginable without at least a little Nazi ideology at government level.
Also I was talking about religion which in contrast to Nazi-ideology can be benign, when practiced in private.
I wasnt advocating for surveiling everyone. I was suggesting creating an atmosphere that continuously shuts down religion just like we do with Nazism. I accept that not everyone agrees with Nazis, but our general consensus is that Nazis are bad. The same cannot be said for our general consensus of religion.
These groups get their legitimacy and authority by following an ideology everyone worships. There’s a reason why Scientology is seen as a stupid idea while Christianity/Islam are “ways of life.” It’s because the latter religions are popular and they become legitimate because of popularity. That’s why I think it’s really important to shame anyone who considers themselves a true religious person, to errode that legitimacy.
“That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.” So a state institution imposing religious virtues on a student? How is that constitutional, something for the ACLU perhaps?
In your own words, according to you, she did do something wrong: she did she wouldn’t want being filmed. (Note: she wasn’t actually the one twerking.)
Look at how the comments on this got taken and twisted.
Nobody twisted your comments. We just read what you wrote and considered the context in which you wrote it. (That last detail is something you seem to have not done.)
hard agree some poor kid getting molested by a priest praying to cold dead silence… either gods sending kidfuckers to earth or he’s just standing by and watching it happen. I feel like churning down a burch
100% agree kids should be allowed to be kids and do things like dance and have fun. Reminds me of back in the day comments like “leave room for Jesus” when dancing and “Rock n roll is from the devil” its fricking 2923 keep your religion out of my life
I have read the room. The victim is not here. OP got the article from a news source.
THUS… we don’t need to worry about hurting her feelings. How else CAN we contribute? Well, one constructive way is to share advice for how to prevent this. It’s a good practice to not do or say things unless you’re comfortable being recorded.
I agree her punishment is inappropriate, but I don’t control that high school. All I control is whether I do things I don’t want recorded or not.
How about if we rephrase it as “don’t do things that someone else can victimize you for.” Can you see how there can be a correlation with victim blaming?
The contextual difference here is that the woman in question was dancing at a private party. That is something that’s okay to be comfortable with, even if a friend is recording. Thus, the problem here isn’t that she shouldn’t have done that, but that others victimized her over it.
That’s why Rally’s advice is getting criticized. It’s getting correlated with “don’t do things you enjoy in private with your friends because someone terrible might do terrible things to you.” This is genuinely terrible advice.
I never thought that or said that. You made a large jump there. All I did was to share guidence i provided to my family. It’s not my place to blame anyone here.
It’s just advice for my kids that I shared. It may be good or bad advice based on your opinions and experiences. Take it, or leave it. But how do you jump to victim blaming?
Lol… wow. The advice from rally is sound and totally correct. You took it the wrong way and thought he was saying it was her fault. He is saying don’t even put yourself in that situation by being filmed if you can avoid it. If you do not understand that then you’re truly lost. Also, im blocking you because Im sure you’ll misunderstand this too.
I never said that. I never made a comment about the person in the article. Just my life experience. We are all free to do whatever want. I would never yuck somebody else’s yum. It’s just sad in this age almost everything you do can be brought up against you in the future. I just want my kids to be aware of this and that is all.
I think twerking is pretty stupid, but I have nothing against stupid things. I love doing them and as long as you’re not hurting other people you should be free to be as stupid as you want without anyone judging you.
God. God cares. He loves everyone and is omnipotent, but also really judgy and bitchy because reasons. And he's watching you so closely that you can reach out and touch his bloodshot ethereal eyeball. Well, if it wasn't ethereal, anyway. So don't ever let that aspirin fall from between your knees. He'll know if it does. And send plague of Karens to shame you. But only because he loves you and demands obedience.
He’ll know if it does. And send plague of Karens to shame you.
No no, first the Karens have to find that out, God won’t tell them even if he’s literally aware of everything that happens in the world. He’s kinda lazy if you ask me.
I completely agree with you. The sad fact is that many people care. I don’t condone it. I have done a lot of dumb things that would have a large life impact on my life if they were caught on camera.
Wow, I went to sleep, and my comment got bombed to hell.
Let me clarify to anyone reading these comments. I don’t agree at all with what happened to this girl. It’s unfair and wrong on so many levels. The principle comments are gross and uncalled for.
All I did was put advise out there that I give to my children to help navigate that world as we see it.
No reasonable person should be afraid to be filmed dancing. The video was completely innocent and the principal at this school is clearly a religious creep.
In this world today there is also no way to avoid being filmed anyway.
You expect us to believe your comment has nothing to do with the article, and just by coincidence, you happened to post “I tell my kids not to do anything they wouldn’t want being filmed” in response to an article about someone facing consequences for somebody else doing something that was filmed, and we are all the bad guys for unfairly assuming tha your comment had anything at all to do with the article it was posted in response to?
They are related of course. That is the point of a discussion post. But the jump to victim shaming is improper. I am not saying anyone is a bad guy here, never have or implied that. Just stating my point and people are assuming things about my post. I’ll take it as a learning lesson to be clearer in the future.
The fuck are you on? That’s a random site that I’m sureeeeee works for random pictures taken without your permission being posted by random people, you think that’ll work against a massive news publication?
It’s a massive ethical debate, but you think that’ll stop them? The vast majority of photos used fall under fair use, since the second you post them to social media, they no longer belong to you.
That’s a legal site run by lawyers under Reuters, it’s not some random site. Do you have absolutely anything supporting what you’re saying, or are you making things up off of stereotypes you read on the internet.
You literally just googled “photos without permission posted online” and copy and pasted the URL here.
If you knew anything about the law, the constitution, and court cases, you’d know that journalists have unbelievably broad leeway to post whatever is deemed newsworthy, including photographs taken without consent.
And the proof falls on you. You’re the one who needs to show it’s illegal. Everything is legal until it’s not. That person can’t prove legality unless there’s a court case that overturns a law.
That’s not how it works. I don’t know what social media is involved, but from according to Facebook’s TOS, you grant Meta a revocable license to use it it a manner consistent with your privacy settings.
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
There is a potential fair use argument to be had (particularly since the allegedly infringing party is news). And it is not clear from the article who owns the original copyright in the first place.
Yes she was. You should read the article. It mentions the girls name, which is the same name on the diplomas the girl is holding. Also putting some random irrelevant person as the image would make zero sense.
No she wasn’t. The name matches because the article and picture are both about the person who missed out on the scholarship because of the twerking video, but she still wasn’t the person twerking in the video.
“[She] was seen dancing at a private homecoming afterparty on September 30 behind a friend who was twerking”
The person you’re replying to is pointing out that they aren’t showing the picture of someone who was twerking because her scholarship was revoked for being next to someone who was twerking.
Yeah, but you see that is black dancing. Twerking is also black dancing to them. The principal is punishing this girl because of a perceived moral lapse, but there's always the racial subtext in the South. It reminds me of when all the incels and conservatives freaked out over She-Hulk because of the twerking bit. It's not just morality, but also racism.
We really need to move to a standard which doesn’t judge people by their behaviour outside the professional setting. I suspect half the people lamenting this would be cheering it if she expressed opinions or behaviour they disagreed with. We need to have laws in place to protect people to do offensive things, or make offensive statements, which have nothing to do with their school or workplace.
The severity is quite different, but the premise is not. These are both offensive things to different people. Either we allow institutions to police offensive things outside their walls, or we don’t. What you’re communicating to me is you’d like to be emperor of America, and only you can fairly arbitrate these things. I’ll let you in on a little secret: everyone thinks that. That’s why we have democracy.
I would say it highly depends on how it reflects on the institution. Twerking has nothing to do with any possible education she might have received. Saying that black people are unintelligent but good dancers shows the attempts to educate the student has failed them, which makes the school look bad if they get the scholarship.
Similarly, I’m fine with people who got fired for participating in January 6th. Any company that kept them on could face a major boycott and those people don’t deserve their jobs because they’re insurrectionists.
But this particular girl? Totally deserves the scholarship. Twerking is not a reflection of how she was educated.
I would say it highly depends on how it reflects on the institution.
This institution felt it reflected badly on them. You’re making a lot of subjective comparisons as though they’re objective. Either the institution has the right to determine what they find acceptable, or they don’t. If they do, you have to be prepared to accept that different people value different things to you.
@JasSmith@FlyingSquid it was a public school. And they cited religious beliefs as for why they were so offended. That's a clear violation of church and state and while it's certainly not new or unique it's not defensible or right.
Either you support the concept of free speech, or you don’t. Such a law would need to protect all speech, not just speech you personally find permissible.
The paradox of tolerance suggests we draw a line and decide some things are unacceptable to tolerate or the tolerant will be overwhelmed by the intolerant. I’m sure Poppers arguments are not without flaws but absolute free speech is a pipe dream.
There are limits to free speech in US laws already, some common examples are slander, libel, and threats. There’s also “imminent lawless action” where words inciting violence can be restricted.
Maybe I’m drawing a false correlation between the two ideas but in general I don’t think it’s so black and white as you might suggest.
The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher’s idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It’s not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.
Says who? It’s okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it’s a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that’s how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That’s what Rawls argues.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
For example, France’s ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That’s how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.
If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn’t a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I’m not trying to “both sides” this, I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves
Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
All we can do is give it our best try. It’s better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can’t get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well.
The good news is that you don’t have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.
I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
I don’t agree, but even so, you haven’t proposed an alternative yet.
I did state that his argument was not without its flaws. It still serves its purpose as a thought experiment about how a society should handle radically dissenting opinions.
I won’t pretend to know the answer in practice and censorship makes me uneasy but my debate is against free speech absolutionists.
Because I don’t want to give some unelected bureaucrats the ability to discommunicate someone because they said something stupid. Public goods are meant to serve the public, even if they have bad opinions.
I think the limit should be pretty high, but I’m fine with, as an example, people who spread abject hatred being rejected by most parts of society. I think not spreading hatred against your fellows is an integral part of the social contract.
Wdym you want people to have principled opinions on cancel culture? We’re on the internet, here we doxx hold people accountable for the things we don’t like and complain when the wrong people face repercussions of their behavior outside their jobs
@TheOneWithTheHair good lord what happened to just punishments. Even if this was something to punish (which it isn't) anything more than a detention is kinda extreme? Ya'll taking away scholarships? That's a future by some measures. You're saying it's okay to take away her ability to get a bright future because she was at a party on her own time?
"They had other people dancing in that video who were on the dance team that nothing happened to. He said she was punished because she is the 'hood ornament' of the school."
Based on the NY Post pictures it was probably awkward teenage white girl twerking too. This whole thing is just a nothing burger and it doesn't even seem like a private school. what the heck?
🤢 ah yes, nothing like having all the thickness and curves of a tiny palm tree but still for some reason all the enthusiasm of a Labrador on bath salts. it’s more vertical vibration than twerking if you look like a bleached light pole.
they were kids having sober, abstinent fun, nothing scandalous about it, and this Jesus shit needs to stop. I wish the international atheist society started a charity to get her scholarship money replaced, I would definitely throw in a few bucks.
So the girl in question wasn’t twerking, it was person “friend” in front of her in the video. She was just dancing. I consider myself pretty logical in most things and this doesn’t make sense.
The person in question did not commit any offense her self based on how the news article read. If she herself was doing something that did not promote a good image it would be understandable but this was not the case.
I can agree to a certain point but as this particular scholarship is only handed to two people a year I imagine the requirements are very high and the standard at which one conducts themselves is taken into account. Never the less I do not understand and cannot condone punishing those that do not deserve it.
This girl must have worked hard for such a scholarship and to be denied what she earned for such a bizarre reason just seems petty and small.
Add comment