Big Girls should take the stairs NOT the elevator

What is PC about anyhow?

If it's just a big liberal joke, is it OK to burn a cross on campus outside a black student's dorm room?

Oh - someone up there somewhere asked what would happen if he had said "people" not "women".

Same deal. He's still a rude li'l turd.

I love those "No Fat Chicks" signs.

It is such a clear way of finding out - with no need to waste time investigating any further - that the male/s displaying them have no brains.

Sort of like real truth in advertising. Saves time and trouble.

If I understand the defenses of the guy who got in trouble, he was either:

___ a misunderstood satirist.

___ someone issuing an important public-health message.

D'artagnan wrote:

If I understand the defenses of the guy who got in trouble, he was either:

___ a misunderstood satirist.

___ someone issuing an important public-health message.

How about:
___a sophomore, guilty of nothing more than a sophomoric prank who was subsequently unjustly labeled an academically dishonest sexual harasser and kicked out of his home simply because some people didn't think his joke was funny?

Right or wrong, fairly or unfairly, fat people are maligned in humor in thousands of sources every day of the year. Should this sophomoric sophomore really be kicked out of his home, and have his record tarnished because somebody couldn't take a joke? Should the countless thousands of actors and comedians who've played the funny-fat-card be liable? Goodness, what about the balding men jokes? Is there a class-action lawsuit going that I should sign up for? Or would that be as ridiculous as what some folks are looking past in the case of this sophomoric sophomore?

I love those "No Fat Chicks" signs.

It is such a clear way of finding out - with no need to waste time investigating any further - that the male/s displaying them have no brains.

Sort of like real truth in advertising. Saves time and trouble.

Lots of free speech is nasty and offensive... to some… would you have it any other way?

You are missing the point, I think, Bill.

The point is that this li'l rude fella was living in a communal situation with actual people.

I think the sexual harassment card ought not to have been played - but, if he was a repeat offender at communal rudeness, well, there comes a point at which rude jokes, like not flushing loos, and other domestic sins, mean someone needs to find a new home.

The only difference I can see between making fun of fat girls, and making fun of bald guys, is that girls are more emotional. If anyone else can think of other reasons, go ahead and throw them in. But it seems to me he's being punished for chosing emotional victims.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lots of free speech is nasty and offensive... to some… would you have it any other way?

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

What do you mean? The kid was punished for expressing himself.

dlowan wrote:

You are missing the point, I think, Bill.

The point is that this li'l rude fella was living in a communal situation with actual people.

I think the sexual harassment card ought not to have been played - but, if he was a repeat offender at communal rudeness, well, there comes a point at which rude jokes, like not flushing loos, and other domestic sins, mean someone needs to find a new home.

Then we agree that the action against the kid was overboard. IF your assumption that he has a rich history of violations is true, and he had been warned against this type of behavior, I would agree he should be kicked out. But, there is no mention of ANY past violations whatsoever. Also, a State assisted college dorm isn't quite the same setting as a commune where your housemates can vote you out. Popularity is no issue at all. Do we also agree that one joke taken as too offensive provides no excuse whatsoever to throw the kid out, let alone scar his academic record... if there is no priors? There was no mention of any prior bad behavior in the links.

What if, just as an analogy, he had said "Black fat people ought to use the stairs" - instead of female fat people? What would your position be on that, BTW?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What do you mean? The kid was punished for expressing himself.

So? That has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What do you mean? The kid was punished for expressing himself.

So? That has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser

I agree with the principles that JUSTICE BRENNAN sets out in his opinion concurring in the judgment. I dissent from the Court's decision, however, because in my view the School District failed to demonstrate that respondent's remarks were indeed disruptive. The District Court and Court of Appeals conscientiously applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and concluded that the School District had not demonstrated any disruption of the educational process. I recognize that the school administration must be given wide latitude to determine what forms of conduct are inconsistent with the school's educational mission, nevertheless, where speech is involved, we may not unquestioningly accept a teacher's or administrator's assertion that certain pure speech interfered with education. Here the School District, despite a clear opportunity to do so, failed to bring in evidence sufficient to convince either of the two lower courts that education at Bethel School was disrupted by respondent's speech. I therefore see no reason to disturb the Court of Appeals' judgment. [478 U.S. 675, 691]