2
   

Big Girls should take the stairs NOT the elevator

 
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:16 pm
I think your opinions have been pretty sound Kristie.

People do stupid things every day. This was just one little stupid thing. It was not atrocious, it was not sexual harrassment, it was not a horrible sin, but it was also not tactful. It was stupid, but not even that stupid. It wasn't even that inconsiderate.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:30 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
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?

If that was supposed to imply some relevance to this case, I must say that I wasnt aware that fat people have been victimized by centuries of oppression, slavery, institutionalised racism and cross-burning KKK-types dragging "offensive" fat people to death behind their cars ... a legacy still manifested in structural deprivation throughout society today - but perhaps I'm missing something here. Seems apples and oranges to me, though.

dlowan wrote:
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.

And being a rude li'l turd is a good enough reason to be put in a program for sexual harrassers and put on probation for 18 months?

I never liked heavy-handed school directors, I dont care whether they be the old-fashioned conservative pricks or some newfangled liberal ones.

Quote:
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.

Well, there you go. Let the stupid be stupid, and you'll know who you're dealing with.

The question here I thought was when one should move from expressing personal scorn about something to prosecuting official sanction of it. If we're talking of someone actually bullying some girl or guy, I think its pretty obvious. But the "No Fat Chicks" (or, say, "No Ugly Nerds") sign thing - really?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:39 pm
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? Shocked 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? Laughing
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:39 pm
"dlowan wrote:
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.

And being a rude li'l turd is a good enough reason to be put in a program for sexual harrassers and put on probation for 18 months?"

Dinna say it was - if you read my response you may discover that.

I actually said it was sexist rudeness - NOT sexual harassment.

I do think he should have been thrown out for not knowing how to play nice, if it was a repeat offence.

Settle Nimh - not like you not to read a post properly.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:42 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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? Shocked 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? Laughing


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.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:47 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:49 pm
dlowan wrote:
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.


Wait.

So you're saying, if you saw me wearing my t-shirt (picture of Twinkies in the middle), with "It's Not Genetic" written above the twinkies followed with "Now Step Away From the Twinkies" written below...not funny?

But I like hugs.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:53 pm
What's a twinky?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:55 pm
A snack food. Yellow and full of creme...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:56 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:57 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:01 pm
SCoates wrote:
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.


Hmmm - dunno.

I nearly got done for sexual harassment at my workplace once.

Two of the guys got very ariegated because someone had put up an article about differential aging of male and female brains on the notice-board.

(It reported research suggesting that male brains as they age lose comparatively many more cells in the "higher" centres - you know - social interaction, intellectual endeavour areas - while female brains tend to lose the same amount of brain cells - but evenly distributed - so that men become more affected overall in some important areas - especially socially and such)

I got back from holidays - (was overseas for a couple of months) and got attacked by these two guys as soon as I walked in the door - "We'll report you for sexual harassment" etc.

Well, when I pointed out that I hadn't actually been in the country when the article went up, they lost a little steam....

Actually, it had been put up by our (male) neuro-psychologist - because he thought it both interesting, and amusing - and said it explained a lot to him!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:03 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:06 pm
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
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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.


Like the rest if you, Bill, I have no idea if he had offended previously, or not - if he had, I support his being thrown out of the dorm. If he hadn't - I would judge based on the nastiness of the behaviour.

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?

Yes - a dorm - which I assume is kind of like a College of Residence here, (?) is a bit different from a household. Nonetheless, I assume there are standards set about behaviour which negatively affects other people? There certainly is in colleges here - I do not, of course, know what standards are expected of students in the US.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:12 pm
The sign should have been taken down, but I don't see a need for a punishment. I have a pet peeve with authority figures believing that every action needs a punishment.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:22 pm
dlowan wrote:
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?
It would be less funny, and in even poorer taste... why do you ask?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:26 pm
What if a black person had done it? Or what if the original sign had been placed by a woman?

Just curious for reaction, I'm not saying that would justify anything.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
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
Dude, I don't see how your reference to a SC opinion about "obscene, profane language or gestures" in front of 14 year-old high school students has any bearing on a college dorm. Did you cite the wrong case? If not, what do you see as similar enough to make that opinion relevant?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
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


Agreed. However, consider TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), cited in Justice Marshall's dissent to BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER, 478 U.S. 675 (1986),
Quote:
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]


Perhaps it is mostly a matter of perspective.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 11:48:10