Judge Says Student Can Sue School For Suspending Her After She Called A Fictional Cop A 'Pig'

from the peak-asinine dept

Sometimes the best move is to let something go. Kids will be kids, as the saying go. Thing is, kids may also be litigants, especially if you think your school administration position grants you the power to violate students' rights.

The mother of the 17-year-old girl filed the federal lawsuit this past February against the Hackettstown School District; teacher Kathleen Matlack; assistant principal Kevin O'Leary; and Jennifer Spukes, a Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying specialist at the high school.

The suit contends the girl was discriminated against and her constitutional rights violated as the district accused the girl of bullying and then issued a one day in-school suspension while she attended the school in the 2016-2017 school year.

That's the tidied-up summary of the lawsuit, as composed by Lehigh Valley Live, which covered the case but couldn't be bothered to post the judge's ruling. So, here's the missing paperwork [PDF] and we'll get into the story behind this via the details contained in the federal judge's order.

This is only the build-up.

On March 8, 2017, K.C. was summoned to the office of Defendant Kevin O’Leary, Assistant Principal at Hackettstown High School. Apparently, K.C. and other students were overheard having a conversation about guns and violence, which O’Leary wished to address. O’Leary asked K.C. whether the conversation concerned the Black Lives Movement; when she told him that she was speaking about confrontations between police and African Americans, O’Leary responded, “all lives matter.” According to K.C., she understood this to mean that she was not to discuss the Black Lives Movement while in school. Apparently, during this conversation O’Leary also remarked that some individuals are lucky to have light-colored skin and pass as Caucasian, which K.C. took as an insult, being that she is bi-racial. However, K.C. was not disciplined for this incident.

This seems like pretty weird behavior from a school official, but not exactly the subject matter of a federal lawsuit. An administrator took a chance to connect with students discussing a serious issue that affects all of them and chose to grind his personal ax instead. A bad decision but not exactly a violation of K.C.'s rights.

THAT

During K.C.’s English class, students were reading the play, “Blood Brothers,” which has a scene where a corrupt police officer treats two suspects differently based on their economic status. As students were picking roles to play, K.C. volunteered to play the police officer, referring to the officer as “the pig.”

ESCALATED

Her English Teacher, Defendant Matlack, reprimanded her for her choice of word and K.C. apologized. This being said, J.G. received a phone call a half hour later from Principal Matthew Scanlon, who explained to her that K.C. was the subject of a Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (hereinafter, “HIB”) investigation…The basis of this investigation was K.C.’s use of the word “pig,” which may have offended a student in the class whose father is a police officer…

QUICKLY

Later that day, the school conducted an HIB investigation, which was attended by K.C., Defendant Jennifer Spuckes, an HIB Investigation specialist, and Defendant O’Leary. K.C. apparently recorded this meeting. In any event, during the meeting, K.C. expressed to Defendants Spuckes and O’Leary that use of the word “pig” did not reflect her view of law enforcement and claimed that the classmate who may have been offended by the statement was not present when she uttered the word. According to the Complaint, “Mr. O’Leary and Ms. Spuckes analogized the use of the term ‘pig’ to the use of the term ‘nigger’ and, later, the term ‘fag.” Apparently, both of them asked her how she would feel if someone called her by either name. Despite objecting to these slurs, Defendants O’Leary and Spuckes continued to utter them in front of her. The two also criticized K.C. for continuing to discuss the Black Lives Movement, which they compared to someone overhearing a sexually degrading conversation between two teachers.

Where do you even start? The bullshit "bullying" accusation? Well, the lawsuit states the student supposedly offended by this wasn't even in the room when the "pig" comment was made. K.C. apologized for referring to a fictional cop character as a "pig," even though there was no reason for her to do so.

From there, it's just an embarrassment of richly embarrassing -- if not downright insulting -- conversational tactics by a bunch of disciplinarians who apparently felt compelled to straighten out a gay, multiracial student by [checks notes] using the words "nigger" and "fag" in an entirely abhorrent analogy that presumes "cop" is a race or sexual orientation.

Also: Black Lives Matter is to "sexually-degrading conversation between two teachers" as Colin Kaepernick is to:

A: gumball machine
B: complete works of Proust
C: narcolepsy
D: deciduous

This atrocious trainwreck of judgment calls was followed by a one-day suspension. This, in turn, was followed by the lawsuit.

The defendants all moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing K.C. didn't have standing and/or failed to state a claim. The federal court disagrees, finding both offered defenses to be off base. K.C. has standing...

[C]ontrary to Defendants’ assertion, none of Plaintiff’s claims “arise under the school laws” of New Jersey. While the allegations relate to the school’s investigation into K.C.’s alleged bullying, the claims asserted arise under a federal statute, state law, United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

… and has stated a plausible claim.

When reviewing the Complaint, the Court is satisfied, at this stage, that Plaintiffs “pig” comment may constitute protected speech that was allegedly wrongfully infringed. While Defendants contend that her punishment was based on complaints of bullying and the school’s overall concern for preventing disruptive behavior, there is nothing alleged in the Complaint to support same. Second, with regards to the Plaintiffs conversation surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement, it can hardly be argued that discussions involving political or social justice matters do not fall within the protections afforded under the First Amendment

There were plenty of opportunities to handle this non-issue in a way that would have eliminated the possibility of a civil rights lawsuit. Anything from "doing nothing" to "doing anything but what was done" would have sufficed. But it sounds like these administrators have something against minorities and people who don't automatically assume cops are saints. And that might cost them in the long run.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    hij (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 12:18pm

    And they still feel the need to keep fighting

    The administrators must have been told by their legal counsel what their options were. The longer they feel the need to fight this the more money they are costing the school system for a case that is likely to go against them. Arrogance in action while others foot the bill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 1:08pm

      Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

      That isn't the only arrogance. The corruption caused by the power over children led them to believe they could manipulate the child. That seems to have backfired.

      But what do we do about the rest of the overbearing asshats that are out of control in our schools? They are there to help them grow intellectually and otherwise, into their own person. Not mold them into some ideological image of themselves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:09pm

      Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

      Yup, once the lawyers get involved everything goes pear shaped.

      The teachers WERE correct in pointing out than it's no different from any of the other slurs they mentioned.

      Then they had to go full frontal idiot.

      A CASUAL mention of something like "Calling a police officer a "pig" is no different than calling a black person 'the N-world'" should have sufficed, and not required anything further.

      That it DID go further makes me suspect the student kept doing so after being told to stop.

      But lawsuits? Someone just HAD to get a lawyer involved.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

        A CASUAL mention of something like "Calling a police officer a "pig" is no different than calling a black person 'the N-world'" should have sufficed, and not required anything further.

        The comparison really isn't equivalent, as pointed out in the article. Only one of those groups you choose to be a member of, the other two you're stuck with like it or not, and I'm pretty sure that the historical background between the words and how they've been used is just a wee bit different in scope and severity.

        That it DID go further makes me suspect the student kept doing so after being told to stop.

        Or that they were a pair of hypocrites on a power-trip, punishing her for not being properly subservient. She might have used the word again. They did use the comparison words again.

        Despite objecting to these slurs, Defendants O’Leary and Spuckes continued to utter them in front of her.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Joe, 24 Sep 2018 @ 9:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

          No, people DO CHOSE to be a N*gger or not. There is a difference between the behavior of a regular black person and a N*gger.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2018 @ 1:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

            So you are saying that being a n*gger is just behavior. In other words, a white person (or asian or hispanic or whatever) can also be a n*gger, by behaving in a certain way? Certainly a novel way to look at the world.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

        Yup, once the lawyers get involved everything goes pear shaped.

        It went sideways long before that.

        The teachers WERE correct in pointing out than it's no different from any of the other slurs they mentioned.

        No, not actually. Calling someone or something a pig (especially an actual pig) is not the same as calling someone a recognized racial slur. "Pig" is not a racial slur. Occasionally used as a derogatory descriptor, yes, racial slur, no.

        Then they had to go full frontal idiot.

        That happened when they decided to open an HIB investigation, if not earlier.

        A CASUAL mention of something like "Calling a police officer a "pig" is no different than calling a black person 'the N-world'" should have sufficed, and not required anything further.

        No, nothing should have been said, period. It was a fictional character who was written as, ahem, "a pig". Calling him and his behavior as such should not have been offensive to anyone. Especially not the offended person who wasn't present in the room when it was uttered, and for which the student apologized.

        That it DID go further makes me suspect the student kept doing so after being told to stop.

        Did you literally not read the article? First off, she did stop, second, she should never have been told to stop, in the first place.

        But lawsuits? Someone just HAD to get a lawyer involved.

        Well yes, because calling a fictional character written as a pig, a pig, is First Amendment protected free speech. Reprimanding a student and suspending them for engaging in such protected speech is a violation of the student's First Amendment rights. You bet your ass they HAD to get a lawyer involved.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

          The reason slurs are demonized is that they dehumanize the person or group being insulted.

          What is more dehumanizing than referring to a person or group as a class of animal?

          Wildly blown out of proportion by all sides.

          It COULD have simply been solved even with "Don't call police 'pigs' in school".

          If she'd continued to do so, the suspension would have been valid.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            lucidrenegade (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

            What is more dehumanizing than referring to a person or group as a class of animal?

            How about stop being a pussy?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

              Exactly. Are you referring to a young cat, thus comparing me, personally, to an animal? That's an insult, not a slur.

              Are you referring to female genitalia? In that case, you're committing a slur against women by claiming my statement isn't something any Real Man would say.

              And, I have to admit that I'd hit the Funny button half a dozen times if I could for such an apt reply to my comment. :)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 4:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

                Please take it as an insult. I think it was meant to be insulting.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                YiddishNinja (profile), 24 Sep 2018 @ 7:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

                Actually, not a young cat. A fat, pampered housecat that could not care for itself if it left the house. It's not a danger to anyone.

                Both the insult to your manhood and the nickname for a female body part derive from pussycat, but for different reasons.

                And if calling someone an animal is automatically a slur, Christians need to shape up on that whole "lamb of God" thing.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Will B., 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:09pm

            hmmm...

            What is more dehumanizing than referring to a person or group as a class of animal?

            Having some asshole on the internet claim that slurs rooted in decades or centuries of marginalization, harassment, and legal violation of human rights for members of your race or sexual orientation - violations that continue to this very day and are often reinforced by social norms - are equivalent to name-calling toward the very people in positions of power that marginalize, harass, and violate people of your race or sexual orientaton?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:24pm

              Re: hmmm...

              Take it easy. Take a look at his profile. Bamboo Harvester has been a respected member of this community for quite a while now. He might be a lawyer, but if not his comments about the law have been regarded respectfully and sometimes as insightful. That there are issues with his point of view on this issue does not mean he is some Internet asshole. It means that he has some issues with points of view expressed by others here. I may think he is wrong, and others might think he is wrong, but there may be others still who agree with him.

              Calling him an asshole is not the same as calling cops pigs. One is fairly generic, the other is personal. Many of my generation called cops pigs. If it was or is an accurate description is a matter of perspective (see my comments elsewhere on this page), but none of the references made today were personal, nor was the high school student whom the article was about.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:11pm

                Re: Re: hmmm...

                I'm not a lawyer. I'm just bloody OLD. Passions of the young burned out long ago - which means I can see BOTH sides of most situations.

                The bothersome one here is that apparently a lot of the comment think it's just fine to use slurs to define one group but not others.

                I've got no bias towards or against cops. Or blacks, or Muslims, or ... I could go on, I can't think of a single group I'd judge by a stereotypical slur. Like I said, they're all just PEOPLE.

                And if you've got enough brains to tie your own shoes, you'll realize that the TRUE stereotype is... MOST people are jerks.

                I remember when everyone called cops "pigs" as well. Cops didn't like it then, they don't like it now.

                As to them "choosing" the profession being somehow a way of making it OK to cast slurs at them, I simply can't fathom. Cops are a necessary evil.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:13am

                  Re: Re: Re: hmmm...

                  "Cops are a necessary evil."

                  While at the same time, they do not have to be evil - they simply like to be.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: hmmm...

                  The argument is not that slurs are fine for some groups of people. The objection is to the school officials - and you - saying that calling a cop a pig is equivalent to calling a black person a nigger or calling a gay person a fag. And apparently you still don't see how it's different.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Will B., 21 Sep 2018 @ 6:25pm

                Re: Re: hmmm...

                When someone acts like an asshole, I'm gonna call 'em an asshole. Sorry.

                Doesn't mean he's always an asshole, or has to continue to be an asshole, just means that he's acting like an asshole by equating racial and homophobic slurs to calling cops "pigs."

                Also, it doesn't matter how personal an insult is; what matters is where the power lies. Calling cops pigs isn't reinforcing marginalization because cops aren't marginalized.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:14am

                  Calling cops pigs isn't reinforcing marginalization because cops aren't marginalized.

                  The same goes for anti-White slurs such as “cracker”: Yeah, they’re insults based on race, but they’re not as powerful as slurs against people of color because White people, as a racial group, have never been marginalized in American society.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:14pm

              Re: hmmm...

              I can't believe some of these "counter-arguments".

              By saying that the slurs are "reinforced by social NORMS", you've just declared the people they're directed against as ABNORMAL.

              Look, this is very simple: If you approve of the use of ANY slur against ANY group, you haven't got a leg to stand on when someone uses a slur against any OTHER group.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Will B., 21 Sep 2018 @ 6:23pm

                Re: Re: hmmm...

                Society continues to view these things as abnormal, yes. That is why they're still marginalized. That's not very hard to grasp.

                Also worth noting: I don't have to approve of an insult in order to recognize that you're painting a massive, blaring, horrible false dichotomy here.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              JEDIDIAH, 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:38am

              Re: hmmm...

              Are you black? If you are, then you've never picked any cotton and have not been kicked out of a lunch counter. What happened 500 years ago is irrelevant.

              Black butt hurt is not any more "holy" than anyone else's.

              Their historic suffering is no excuse for you being a jackass.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Will B., 23 Sep 2018 @ 10:58am

                Ugghhhhh.

                Engaging with you goes against my better judgement, but I will make one attempt; if you listen, you might learn something.

                For starters, cotton slavery wasn't "500 years ago." The 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6th, 1865; less that two hundred years ago.

                Furthermore, that was not the end of legal discrimination against african-americans. That continued (look up Jim Crow laws) until at least 1964, when the Civil Right act was passed; you'll note that, rather than 500 years ago, that's closer to fifty, and there are indeed african americans who lived before the Civil Rights Act and are still alive today.

                So, when that passed, we all ended up on equal standing, right? Obviously not. Excluding for the sake of argument continuing non-legal discrimination (which literally any sociological study on race will point out exists to this very day), we have to take a look and where this series of racial inequities left african american communities.

                Imagine for a moment two people - one from a very wealthy family, and one from a very poor one. The wealthy family can afford to live in a good neighborhood, send their child to good schools, pay for after school activities and extra tutoring if necessary, set aside money for a good college; the poor family lives where they live because they can't afford to move, sends their child to whatever school will take them, can't afford exracurriculars that aren't free or extra help for their child if they struggle, and short of a scholarship or massive student debt, that child is not going to college.

                There is this myth about pullig yourself uo by your bootstraps, but real-world economics has no sympathy; the far greater chance is that the child who grew up in poverty will be stuck there, as will their children, and theirs, and on down the line until someone manages to break the chain. This, incidentally, is what social reform programs try to do: to break the chain, to give these folks a hand up out of poverty - to give them bootstraps they can't afford so they can pull themselves up by them.

                Slavery, Jim Crow era segregation and ghettoization,.and continuing discrimination have left many if not most african american families in that sort of poverty, in the neighborhoods they can't escape, living from paycheck to paycheck from jobs that don't pay what they need to live, sending kids to schools that get less funding because the students don't perform well on tests because the school doesn't get enough funding; they're trapped in a system engineered half a century ago to keep them down, a system we still haven't fixed, because people like you are convinced that so long as they aren't being whipped and picking cotton, they're not "really" oppressed.

                Read a fucking book.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:24pm

        Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

        The teachers WERE correct in pointing out than it's no different from any of the other slurs they mentioned.

        I'll bite.

        In what way is a slur directed at a person's profession the same as a slur directed at a person's race or sexual orientation?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

          You answered it yourself in the question. It's a SLUR - a comment that dehumanizes and often ridicules the group it's directed at.

          They're not limited to race or sexual orientation. Any body that can be defined as a "group" can have slurs directed against it.

          All of which are offensive. Does it matter if slurs against people of African descent have been around longer than those against Lesbians? Or vice versa? Is one "worse" than the other?

          Philosophy aside, public schools have rules against "offensive speech", same as they did when I was a student in them back in the sixties. Break the rule, earn a suspension. Nobody argued about it (other than to deny they used the word).

          In this one particular case, as I mentioned earlier, a "warning" of "Please don't refer to police as pigs" SHOULD have settled the matter.

          One person thinks I didn't read the entire article because I said that I *suspected* the kid kept on doing it, while the article says the teachers kept repeating other slurs.

          The article tells only one side of the story - HERS.

          While my teenage years are lost in the mists of time, I raised two daughters. I know all about the OTHER side of the story that eventually comes to light.

          This event escalated FAST to ridiculous levels. That rarely happens when only one side is pushing it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 6:01pm

            It's a SLUR - a comment that dehumanizes and often ridicules the group it's directed at.

            If a police officer does not want to be called “pig”, they can stop being a cop whenever they want. The same cannot be said for Black people, gay people, women, or any other group of people who have been marginalized just for who they are.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Will B., 21 Sep 2018 @ 6:29pm

              Re:

              I'd argue that it's also more important that "pig" doesn't have a centuries-long history of oppression and marginalization behind it, isn't explicitly meant to enforce marginalization, and isn't, in essence, "punching down" at the person the insult is used against.

              It's not just that police can stop being police if they want to; it's also that they're in a position of power.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 11:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

            So you think that the correct response to a child repeatedly using a slur, is for adults to repeatedly refer to the child with more slurs? And that the correct response to said child discussing a modern political movement is to compare said political movement to sexual degradation of people?

            I can't even bring myself to care about whose story is whose or what the legal situation is or whether slurs about jobs are different than slurs about race, when it's abundantly clear that these so-called educators should never have been allowed near a school. Frankly, the school deserves whatever it gets for even entertaining the idea of hiring these people.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mark saiz, 1 Oct 2018 @ 3:51pm

        Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

        It does not. The "pig" remark was made in the context of the play. It had no bearing on any racial or any other personal identification. "Pig" refers to any police officer, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. The "teachers" are trying to use their position to indoctrinate these kids I to their way of thinking. I'm not excusing the students use of the word, but all it needed was "hey, dont say that", and that was all.
        I've said it, I've said it to a friend who became a cop. And it had nothing to do with his color, race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything other than him being a cop. And nothing else was said. The person I said it to wasnt affended, no one around me was offended. That was it.
        People need to stop getting In to someone elses business, stop "getting offended" for someone else, and grow a pair.
        I'm latin, Hispanic, mexican, what ever you want to call me. I've had people get "offended" for ke because of what someone else said, and that pisses me off. It's not for you to worry about. It doesn't bother me what someone else says. Their ignorance only hurts themselves for saying something and thinking it matters to me. And the people that get "offended for me" are even more so, butting into something that doesnt concern them.
        Like some one calling me a "wet back" or "spick" or what ever, that's between me and who ever said it. Not some one who over heard it, over heard it between us to out of context or even in context, it doesnt concern you. Just like this girl calling a "fictional character" a "pig", that concerns no one but a cop who happens to over hear that, or an actual pig that doesnt want to be associated with a cop.
        So, how about we look at the real problem and address teachers today, liberal minded teachers, who think they are the ones that are supposed to teacher our kids how to think. They're just supposed to provide facts, and that's it. Not their personal agenda, political views, or any thing else.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Oct 2018 @ 7:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: And they still feel the need to keep fighting

          Like some one calling me a "wet back" or "spick" or what ever, that's between me and who ever said it.

          That's one perspective, but there are others who believe that one reason such things remain an issue is because privileged bystanders don't say anything, which is taken as tacit approval.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 1:24pm

    Considering we have been having plenty of examples of cops being complete pigs specially against minorities it's not really a surprise an african-american, bisexual individual would have a less-than-stellar perception of them. It's also interesting to see how BLM is being turned in some sort of terrorist group that shouldn't be in conversations in the collective perception.

    We are living in dark times.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      Besides, it is a legitimate historical reference when one is studying recent history, like say the 1960's and 1970's. Of course, in some cases there might be some more recent references.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bruce C., 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re:

        The irony is that there's a good chance these same administrators used the same expression back in the 60's or 70s...which may not qualify as "recent" history anymore.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          While your premise is likely true, I wonder about how one defines recent history vs very recent history vs current news and recent news, and this was the year that was?

          In one way I could count recent history as history made while I was alive. Then you might be younger and use that definition to disclaim my version. Another way to look at it, is in the last 100 years is recent, whereas in the last 50 years could be very recent, and last week, while destined to become history, is current news, while last month is recent news. Where does one put 10 years ago?

          It is not only a matter of perspective, but a matter of respecting the perspective of others. If I was dead I would not care. Since I am alive, and lived through the 60's and beyond, the reference to cops as pigs is something more than just history. It is something I lived through, and to some level, believed.

          Today, being older, more mature (which are not necessarily the same thing) I don't call cops pigs, but I do disrespect them more than my brethren did in the 60's because they give me reason to.

          To the good cops out there, know that I value you, but disdain your failure to out the bad ones, no matter what the cost.

          Now, take out the age thingy and put these words in the mouth of a high school student expressing their concern over police brutality in recent weeks, months, years and tell us where those administrators have anything to yabber about.

          Sorry, only some of that was directed at you Bruce C.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 1:57pm

    Oink

    Objectively, the police officer in the play was a fucking pig.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:03pm

    'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

    Well, the lawsuit states the student supposedly offended by this wasn't even in the room when the "pig" comment was made.

    Despite objecting to these slurs, Defendants O’Leary and Spuckes continued to utter them in front of her.

    So offending someone who isn't even in the room(assuming they even were offended) is terrible, worthy of suspension, yet doing the same thing so someone's face is perfectly fine.

    What lovely, grossly hypocritical, and hopefully soon to be jobless individuals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:12pm

      Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

      So if using any of the racial or sexual orientation slurs supposedly equated to "pig" by the teachers are ok to use so long as nobody belonging to any of those groups isn't in the room?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

        As I noted above the comparison between the slurs is not an equal one. One of them is based upon something you choose, the other two are not. Treating them as equivalent doesn't really hold up.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

          You do realize that all you're saying is that you agree that slurs against SOME groups are OK by you, right?

          What about the families of people in groups that slurs are applied to? They have no right to be insulted, or to "feel smaller" because those slurs are used? THEY didn't have the "choice" you seem to feel makes a difference.

          And again, what if no members of the group referred to by slur are present? That makes it OK?

          Slurs are dehumanizing and reflect the bias or ill-education of those who use them. Which doesn't make it impossible to be biased against law enforcement without calling them "pigs".

          You simply can't have it both ways.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

            Given the 1st Amendment, it is not up to the teacher, nor school administrators to do anything about what any student says, unless they break some law in doing so. Threaten someone, law break. Denigrate a legally protected minority, law break. Cast aspersion on a not legally protected anyone, no law break.

            The teachers and administrators are not there to decide how one thinks. They are there to aid in learning. In some respects they can only aid in the learning that is part of the curriculum prescribed by the school district. There should be no aiding in learning about ideology, other than that ideology exists and here are some examples. They should not be teaching 'an ideology'.

            If the teacher thought the student could have been more respectful, then maybe they should have had a conversation with the parents. Beyond that, unless rules are actually broken. they should piss up tree while lying under it.

            Slurs are dehumanizing, so blame the English teachers for failing to give the students sufficient vocabulary to express themselves (with denigration or not is not the point) with more appropriate disapprobation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:38pm

              Denigrate a legally protected minority, law break.

              I…I’m sorry, but when, exactly, did using racial slurs in a derogatory context become illegal?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:05pm

                Re:

                Well there may be, as you point out, a difference between denigrating and discriminating, but on the receiving end that difference might be moot.

                Which reiterates the point that English teachers may be failing their students in the ability to verbally send disparaging messages without violating anyone's rights or feelz.

                Not that sending disparaging messages is a good thing. There is the opposite tactic of praising those portions of an opponents position that actually benefit their opposition. That takes critical thinking. Something not in an English teachers purview, nor in any high school curriculum that I know of (whoa do I wish that were different).

                Eliminating institutional hatred is a different discussion, though there might be some in the defendants in this case.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:57pm

                  Re: Re:

                  there may be, as you point out, a difference between denigrating and discriminating, but on the receiving end that difference might be moot

                  If you were to denigrate someone using a slur aimed at them for who they are, you would merely be insulting them. (Granted, it would be a hell of an insult. But still.) If you were to discriminate against that same someone based on who they are, you would be doing far more than insulting them—you would be denying them a chance to participate in the public sphere.

                  Denigration can lead to discrimination, but the two are not inextricably linked to one another. (Anti-gay business owners can discriminate against gay people without saying anti-gay slurs, after all.) So long as the denigration does not happen alongside any other illegal act (including calls for violence), that insult is legally protected speech, no matter how distasteful or offensive it may be to you or I.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

            No, I'm not, I'm saying the 'calling cops 'pigs' is equal to calling blacks and homosexuals 'niggers' and 'fags' respectively' argument is compete garbage.

            One of those you choose to be. Two of those you don't.

            Two of those have a much nastier history attached to them, one of them doesn't.

            All of them might be insulting, but two of them are vastly worst than the third.

            As for using the word and your objection to it, I don't bother with 'pig' myself when I refer to corrupt cops(fictional or otherwise), as I prefer titles like 'thug' instead, which I can't help but wonder if you also object to.

            I also try to refrain from applying that label broadly(though I'll use 'corrupt' freely for reasons I've noted before, but which can be listed in tl;dr version as the standard 'A good cop who covers for a bad cop isn't a good cop'), and would object to people who do so even as I can easily understand why they would do so, though I have no problem with using it on a case-by-case basis because in those cases the one I'm using the slur against earned it by their actions.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Thad (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:33pm

            Re: tl;dr

            You do realize that all you're saying is that you agree that slurs against SOME groups are OK by you, right?

            I mean, if we wanna go full Godwin on this shit, yeah, I'm perfectly comfortable with people using slurs when referring to nazis. Or child molesters. Or any number of other reductio ad absurdum examples I could conceivably think of.

            I'm not saying police are equivalent to either of those groups (that's not how a reductio ad absurdum works), and I wouldn't personally refer to them as "pigs". I would, however, note that they have badges, guns, are legally allowed to use force, and indeed there's pretty substantial recent evidence indicating that if they choose to use excessive force, they rarely face consequences for doing so. If you believe that this somehow makes them equivalent to historically opressed minority groups, then you really haven't thought this through.

            You've got a decent point, buried in there, that dehumanizing language is harmful; I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for the teacher to say "Don't do that." I don't think it was worth a trip to the office. And no, it's not remotely equivalent to directing a slur at someone's race or sexual orientation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:49pm

              Re: Re: tl;dr

              That.

              I would add, this isn't Bamboo Harvester's normal discourse, and (to him) if something is going on there is no need to tell us about it, but there is also no need to take it out here.

              Usually I look forward to reading Bamboo Harvester's comments. Not today. Chill! Take a pill. Whatever works for you. It takes more speech to correct inequities in speech.

              If your trying to correct the speech of the high school student, you are way past time. If you are trying to correct us in our speech (over this issue) then tell us what the issue is where you think we have gone overboard. It's not clear yet simply because references to police officers is just not the same as race, religion, or sexual orientation or any of the other legally exempted traits. I don't think we have, but it appears you think differently.

              Without attacking, tell us where.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: tl;dr

                It's both simple and convoluted at the same time.

                Can we agree that insulting people is bad? We shouldn't do it?

                If the answer to that is "no", then I can't explain in a manner that will be understood.

                There can't be a degree of "worse" when talking about a slur - it's an insult, it's dehumanizing, and it's meant to make a member of the insulted group feel smaller.

                What the group actually IS doesn't effect that. It's a slur.

                It's the double standard on this that bugs me. If you'll use slurs to describe one group, what's your logic behind other people using other slurs to describe another group?

                Yeah, some cops are horrible. So are some Muslims. So are some Inuit. So are some waitresses.

                But it's ok to insult the cop with a slur but not the Muslim, Inuit, or Waitress?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 6:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr

                  If you'll use slurs to describe one group, what's your logic behind other people using other slurs to describe another group?

                  Cops can stop being cops whenever they want. A person with Middle Eastern heritage cannot take that heritage off like a uniform when they clock out of work or go on vacation. A gay person cannot stop being gay when they get called “faggot” by a mouthbreathing, backwards-ass moron.

                  A slur used against a profession can only be insulting to people who are in that profession. Last time I checked, no one was going around conscripting people into a local police force against their will. The profession of police officer—like all other professions, and unlike inherited/inherent human traits—is a choice.

                  But it's ok to insult the cop with a slur but not the Muslim, Inuit, or Waitress?

                  Insulting people is not a good thing, in any instance. But if you really think a cop being called “pig” is even remotely on the same level as the N-word…well, there’s really no nice way to say this, so I’ll just say it: Honey, you’re fucked up.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 4:48am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr

                    I disagree... and I'm more in line with B.H.'s mindset.

                    Logically, if we allow that insulting entire groups is OK, then it's OK for all such insults. By picking and choosing who you allow to be insulted, you invalidate logical arguments against the insults you dislike.

                    You aren't the ruler of the world who gets to decide which groups are OK to insult.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 5:17am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr

                      Ack, didn't mean to submit yet.

                      what I mean't by that last statement is that to accept that you (or someone else) gets to decide which group-based insults (or discrimination) are ok, you're actually supporting a "might makes right" philosophy.

                      And if you advocate for that, then you will just have to accept that if/when that "might" changes hands, your claim those that insults you dislike are wrong will also become invalid.

                      I believe that B.H. is saying that the root problem in all of this is that to allow broad-brushing entire groups, dehumanizing the members of those groups (or their associates/families) is wrong.

                      If you believe you can overcome one type of discrimination by allowing another, you're never going to be successful. Instead you merely advocate that discrimination is OK when someone in the right position of power says it's ok.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Sep 2018 @ 11:04pm

                        You made a lot of assumptions about what I said. Let me clear them up for you.

                        My subjective opinions on who is and is not “allowed” to be insulted do not constitute objective fact, nor have I claimed as much. My opinions on what slurs are “okay” or “unacceptable” are also subjective, though I have history backing more than a few of those. I do not advocate for discrimination based on a person’s inherent traits (nor for protected designations such as religious beliefs that are a personal choice). I do not advocate in favor of insulting people, no matter how much I may do it myself.

                        What I advocate for in this line of discussion are these principles:

                        1. Discrmination based on what someone does is fine, because someone acting like an asshole is a universal facet of life.

                        2. A person who feels insulted over someone mocking their career/job or a general personal decision has every right to feel that way.

                        3. Anyone who feels insulted over mockery of their job, however, has less of a right to feel insulted than someone who is mocked for their skin color, sexual orientation, etc. (A cop can stop being a cop; a Black man cannot stop being a Black man.)

                        4. Insults, even those rooted in bigotry, are only as powerful as the person delivering them in a given situation. (Example: A cop using a racial slur against a Black man walking down the street is worse than the Black man calling that cop a “pig” because the cop has more power in the situation.)

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          TDR, 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:34pm

          Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

          Your statement that only one of the three groups has a choice of being part of it is not exactly true, I would just like to point out. Being gay is a choice as well, as the thousands of ex-gays who've left the lifestyle and whose very existence is constantly denied and suppressed by the gay community will tell you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

            Sexual orientation is a choice? Well damn, in that case when did you choose to be straight? At what point in your life did you decide, 'You know, I'm tired of being asexual, not being interested in or attracted to either gender, I think from this day forth I'll be attracted to [whatever gender you are not].' How long did it take you to make the choice, and what factors went into the decision?

            Also under that model how monumentally stupid are those kids who choose to be gay in situations where it could get them harassed, bullied and/or kicked out of their houses, didn't they know they could just choose to be straight and avoid all that?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

            You're just wrong.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:45pm

            Being gay is a choice as well

            If being gay were a choice, no one would choose to be gay. Who would actively and knowingly choose to be part of a denigrated and historically marginalized minority that regularly has people call for (and sometimes act on calls for) violence only because they exist?

            And by the by, as someone who identifies as bisexual (and queer, interchangably), I can tell you from my experience in figuring out my own sexual orientation that it is not a choice.

            as the thousands of ex-gays who've left the lifestyle and whose very existence is constantly denied and suppressed by the gay community will tell you

            “Conversion ‘therapy’ ” is a fraud—a form of psychological torture inflicted upon vulnerable people who are driven to undergo said torture out of a desire (either their own or someone else’s) to be “normal”. Anyone who claims to be an “ex-gay” is deluding themselves.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:49pm

              Re:

              …that regularly has people call for (and sometimes act on calls for) violence against them…

              This is what I get for not proofreading.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 8:53am

              Re:

              Because men are fucking pigs and only a woman knows how to love another woman.

              Children are the worst sort of sexually transmitted disease.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:57pm

        Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

        The cop in the story was a fucking pig. The story explicitly calls out that that pig treated two suspects differently on account of their economic status.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          lucidrenegade (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

          It's not worth your time to argue with "Mr. I like to CAPITALIZE my words BECAUSE it MAKES what I say MORE IMPORTANT".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:59pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

            So long as it's not done to excess I don't really see it as much different than putting certain words italics or bold, as just another way to emphasize certain words or points.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 2:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

          Wait... Do they call him a pig in the actual book? If so that makes the whole thing even worse. Then the teacher forced students to read a book without thinking of the implications the book had and what context the book was written in.

          If that wasn't the case, the teacher would have gone over that information. Meaning the student likely wouldn't have said it.

          In an english class students are outright taught to read between the lines and look at those sorts of things, to the point of it being a good portion (if not all) of the final exams.

          So a student is logicly being punished due to the teacher failing to do their job.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:10pm

      Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

      To me it goes further than this; in the context, "pig" was being used to refer to a corrupt policeman, just like they had been referred at the the time the fictional story was written. It was, in fact, the appropriate term. If anyone needed to be disciplined over this, it was the teacher, who had the class acting out the offensive story in the first place (and no, the teacher WASN'T at fault, as acting out offensive stories shouldn't be a problem either).

      The person who wasn't in the room would have been more offended at the teacher painting their parent's occupation in such sordid terms than with someone describing such a character as a pig.

      On the other hand, the defendants compared this to a racial and a biological slur, both of which used to be applied to people just like the youth they were reprimanding.

      The thing is, the parts I see as lawsuit material here are all the actions taken in school because of the pig comment, plus the suspension. The cornering of the student, while hurtful, insulting and just plain wrong, could have been corrected by the school board via some re-education of the principal and counselor and an apology to the student.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 1:52pm

        Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

        An apology isn't enough for a suspension. Those are put on record, making the student less likely to get into any future schools/programs.

        It also disrupts assignments and exams for the student. (Especially when on paper, some teachers still refuse to make online assignments/tests). This means either it takes away time devoted to another assignment or uses time after school to make it up.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:51am

      Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

      So offending someone who isn't even in the room(assuming they even were offended) is terrible, worthy of suspension, yet doing the same thing so someone's face is perfectly fine.

      Could it be this simple?

      So offending someone who is white is terrible, worthy of suspension, yet doing the same thing so someone who is black is perfectly fine.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Greg Dwyer, 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:26pm

    It seems the judges thought that the school's arguments were complete hogwash, leaving them boared and wallowing in anger and their attempt to gilt trip the student. Hope the school's lawyers weren't sowprised.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bill-o-Rights, 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:35pm

    You do NOT have the right "not to be offended"...

    Politically correct speech isn't correct speech.

    There are plenty of good cops, but there is also an over-abundance of bad cops, who deserve to be called pigs - or worse.

    The current TotUS (Troll of the United States) is one of the worst "offenders" because the Troll doesn't have an off switch of his Cheetoh-Faced-Shit-Gibbon Mouth.

    Nobody's trying to force him to be quiet.

    If the CFSGTotUS is allowed to write and say everything he says, then nobody in this country has any fucking reason to whine about a teenager calling a corrupt cop a pig.

    Hell, I'd call them a pig, a fucking pig, a fucking criminal pig.

    As far as the school administration goes, a hearty Fuck You and the dead horse you rode in on, is greatly in order.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:13pm

      Re: You do NOT have the right "not to be offended"...

      "There are plenty of good cops, but there is also an over-abundance of bad cops, who deserve to be called pigs - or worse."

      So because there ARE members of minority groups that DO fit stereotypical slurs used to describe ALL of them, it's OK to use those slurs?

      How do you know there's an overabundance of bad cops? Did someone poll every cop in the country?

      For the most part, I've found cops to be just doing a job. Only rarely in the last half century have I come across truly bad ones. And those usually don't last long - they get shifted out because not the "good" cops, but the average, everyday, just doing my job cops can't stand them either. But it's Union job - TRY to actually fire one.

      I've also found exactly the same to be true of most of the member of minority groups I've met and dealt with over the years. They're simply just PEOPLE.

      No slurs required against an entire group for the actions of a few.

      (Insert Moore's Law example here, if you just gotta say Nazi's)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        cjstg (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:30pm

        Re: Re: You do NOT have the right "not to be offended"...

        Being a cop is a profession. You can stop being a cop. Stop equating badmouthing the cops with racial or orientation slurs. They are not the same.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 4:48pm

        Did you know that Black people cannot remove their skin after a long day at work⸮

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 2:48am

          Re:

          That’s just ridiculous. Black people can act like white people anytime they want. Just drop the intentionally incorrect grammar, put a belt on to hold your pants up, tie your shoes, get a job and support a family. There. You’re white, in almost all respects. Talk white, work white, act white, you’re as white as any white, maybe whiter because you tried harder.

          Gay people can stop being gay. Just dress normal, walk normal, quit swinging your ass and eyeballing every pretty man that saunters by, and quit getting excited by the imaginary smell of an asshole. Control your sexual desires and hang around with women, and let nature take it’s course. There. You’re not gay. Give it a try, it’s not so bad.

          Admittedly, if you are black AND gay, it might take a very concerted effort. Maybe, in addition to cleaning up your act and keeping your nose out of assholes, becoming a policeman and hanging out with other pillars of society might make it easier. Maybe a soldier, that could help, too. Enroll in the marines and take a vacation break in Thailand. There you go, not gay OR black anymore.

          Or not, who cares? Police are not pigs, and calling people names first denigrates yourself. It’s your choice to make yourself look bad.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 6:15am

            Re: Re:

            "Black people can act like white people anytime they want. Just drop the intentionally incorrect grammar, put a belt on to hold your pants up, tie your shoes, get a job and support a family. There. You’re white, in almost all respects. Talk white, work white, act white, you’re as white as any white, maybe whiter because you tried harder."


            Is this sarcasm/satire or a really tone deaf rant?
            It is hard to tell.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 7:38am

            Wow. Racism, homophobia, and racist homophobia. This is a bigotry trifecta! (Throw in some sexism and I bet you’d get a free sundae at the next Klan meeting.)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 7:48am

            Re: Re:

            You clearly have no idea how must Black people and Gay people act.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 8:10am

              Re: Re: Re:

              One thing I have learned in my life is that for the most part, people act the way they want to act. Homosexuals, for example, don’t actually process normal emotions like love and devotion and the commitment it takes to keep a relationship with the opposite sex.

              They are instead fixated on sexual acts, and the only partners they can find for their ravenous sexual appetites are other other similarly fixated men. They just have no self control, and trade in what normal people would consider normal lives for lives with more frequent sexual acts and less frequent acts of giving real love and tenderness, as happens between normal men and women.

              That is, they act the way they want to act, and they are getting what they think they want. They never experience the challenge of keeping a mate of the opposite sex interested, because they only care about one thing. Which is fine, to each their own. But they don’t HAVE to act this way, the just ENJOY acting this way. They’re just not normal people.

              Read the Bible, it spells it all out in detail.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Anton Sherwood (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 8:27am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You seem to understand ‘homosexual’ as synonymous with ‘teenage boy’. I hope that when you grow up you'll get the chance to meet a few people who aren't just like you.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 8:48am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I met a LOT of homosexuals in my life. Many, really. Many of my girlfriends liked gay guys, and would subject me to their friendship as well. I heard first hand, over and over, again and again, about the priorities they had in their life. I knew one homosexual who bragged he had sex with more then 365 men in one year. Even the calmest most modest homosexual men I knew talked about having sex 3-5 times a day.

                  I don’t think I’m wrong about this, I took quite a large survey. Other men are just easier sexual targets than women, women are tough. They pretty much rule the world, with 50% of all the property, and 100% of all the pussy. Women. Can’t live without ‘em.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:11am

                    I met a LOT of homosexuals in my life.

                    The fact that you repeatedly refer to gay people as “homosexuals”—as if to remain clinically detached from the idea that they are people—tells me that you have not, in fact, met a lot of gay people in your life.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 7:33pm

                      Re:

                      Hey, I didn’t call them “fags”. I was being polite.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 9:51pm

                        You deserve no credit, and you will receive none, just because you displayed basic human respect for other people.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:39pm

                          Re:

                          You seem to be critical of my opinion no matter what I say or how I act. My point remains that I believe people, for the most part, choose their own behavior and do not have it thrust upon them involuntarily. Gay people want to be gay, they are not compelled, they just prefer it to other options, for whatever reason. The idea that they cannot control themselves (as you inferred) just does not seem credible to me. They could if they wanted to, they just don’t want to. The sexualization of everything from school toilets to Bert and Ernie looks like a recruitment tactic more than anything to do with civil liberties.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 11:57pm

                            Re: Re:

                            Being gay ain't the same thing as having gay sex. An asexual person can still be gay.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:12am

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              Kind of like Bert and Ernie, right? Even puppets can be gay.

                              What a weird world view, and I think, likely disingenuous.

                              Gay people like Gay sex, that’s why they’re Gay. I have never met a Gay person that was not in it for the Gay sex.

                              Not once, ever.

                              And I never met a gay puppet who does not exist below the waist. Oh wait, I think Gutfeld had one this week.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 5:54am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                So gay guys ain't 'real' gays unless they fuck? What else do 'real' gays so, Mr. Expert on Gay Sex?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 7:57am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  I have never met or even heard of a gay person who did not have gay sex. Ever. Have you?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:42am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Don't know about you, but I have...

                                    One took a vow of Celibacy for religious reasons.

                                    Another is asexual and repulsed by the idea of sex with any gender.


                                    I know you don't see names and faces to those people, and that's the point. You simply turn your idea of gay people into a picture frame ready for any face you want to put there... but not all pictures will fit that frame.

                                    So, please toss the frame aside and actually take a look at the photos.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:54pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I suppose you could say that I am biased, because I have formed an opinion. On the other hand, that bias comes from personal experience, and the open and honest disclosure from actual gay people. I understand that I have not interviewed every gay person, and nothing about people can ever be applicable to each and every person. But some things are more true than false, and from my experience, I have formed my opinion.

                                      Is your experience actually different, that is, are the overwhelming majority of gay people you now very focused on gay sex? Are the people you cite in your examples the norm or the exception?

                                      Don’t have a heart attack, it is just a question. Are you brave enough to be honest and respond? Open and honest discussion often leads to good things.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Anton Sherwood (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 10:57am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Surely people usually become aware of their preference, and may announce it, before acting on it.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Will B., 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:42am

                                  Okay, seriously

                                  Please stop feeding the troll.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:17am

                            Re: Re:

                            You sound like every closet case I’ve ever seen. Might want to get some counseling and consider coming out of the closet.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:24am

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              Well, one dramatic difference between you and me is that I have never seen a single “closet case”, let alone the astonishing high number you have witnessed (or perhaps been?).

                              Why have you seen so many closet cases? What exactly is a “closet case”? Or is this just meaningless driven from a moron?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:01am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Exactly, you haven't seen a closet case because they exist to protect people from bigoted people like you.

                                The closet is a metaphor: you can't see what's inside if it's closed.

                                Sometimes gay people try to hide anything associated with that part of themselves. They let it out of that closet when they feel they are ready to face whatever reaction it may bring.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:40pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Why am I bigoted if I just recount my experience with gay people? Am I not allowed to form an opinion based on my own experience? Do I have any rights to my own thoughts?

                                  I tend to close the door when I have sex too. That would be normal, in my experience, and normal for my partners too. Does that mean I am “in the closet”?

                                  Sex is a private thing for nearly everyone outside porn stars, isn’t it?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 11:11pm

                                    If you genuinely do not understand the term “in the closet” in re: gay people, you have a severe case of ignorance, willful or not. (You also probably lack the gay friends you profess to have.)

                                    If you are being a dumbshit about the term so you willingly look obtuse and cause people to get mad at you and respond more, you are acting in bad faith and you should fuck off back to Bible Study.

                                    And by the by, gay people have the absolute right to live a public life and be openly gay. That includes the right to do in public what you might consider a sexual act if gay people did it but an innocent act if straight people did it (e.g., holding hands, kissing each other). If you cannot deal with that reality, that is your issue, not theirs.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 8:19pm

                                      Re:

                                      I have heard the term, but I never understood it. Was it about having sex in the closet and then having sex out of the closet? Why is the closet significant? I have sex in private, but not in a closet. Do gay people have sex in closets? It seems like it would be uncomfortable. I just never understood what the term meant in detail, and I didn’t not understand when someone I don’t know said I should come out of a closet I have never been in. So I asked him to explain. Now I assume it was just drivel from a (probably gay) moron.

                                      About gay people showing physical affection in public, I don’t think a lot of physical affection in public is appropriate by anyone, gay or not. But I would not be more critical of a gay couple than a straight couple.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Anton Sherwood (profile), 24 Sep 2018 @ 10:59pm

                                        Re: Re:

                                        I find it hard to believe that there is any English-speaker past puberty (let alone one who claims acquaintance with some large number of homosexuals) who does not know that “the closet” is a generations-old metaphor for secrecy, and that “coming out of the closet” means revealing one's homosexuality.

                                        It's so far from obscure that it was the basis of a gag in Mad magazine's parody of Three's Company (a television series, 1977–1984).

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 11:49pm

                                          Re: Re: Re:

                                          So can you explain what the previous poster meant when he suggested I was a “closet case”? Was he saying I was a homosexual because I did not appreciate unwanted sexual advances from homosexuals? Is that strange or what? My not wanting them means actually I want them. Is that the deranged logic being applied? Kind of like ladies that “ask for it” from a rapists point of view?

                                          I am not a lady, i have not asked for it, and I would do my level best to dissuade anyone who thinks otherwise.

                                          What possible legitimate basis could one anonymous coward have to characterize another anonymous coward’s sexual preferences?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Anton Sherwood (profile), 25 Sep 2018 @ 1:14am

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            It's a suggestion that those who denounce homosexuality the loudest are motivated by fear (or shame) that they themselves might be gay. There have been some high-profile examples.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2018 @ 2:02am

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              It certainly sounds similar to the claim that those who complain about rapists were actually asking to be raped.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 4:30pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Other men are just easier sexual targets than women, women are tough. They pretty much rule the world, with 50% of all the property, and 100% of all the pussy. Women. Can’t live without ‘em."

                    Answer several questions for me then.

                    • Why are women oppressed in several countries even today?

                    • Do you not acknowledge or respect transgender people?

                    • Why is the duluth model still used?

                    • Why are there women only train cars in countries like Japan, Brazil, and Indonesia?

                    Also, You talked about how overly sexual and depraved gay people then decided to sexualise women yourself. Pot meet Kettle.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 7:38pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Women are often oppressed because men feel insecure, I suppose.

                      I acknowledge transgender people.

                      I don’t know what the Duluth model is.

                      I don’t know why there are women only train cars, maybe safety.

                      To court and sustain a relationship with a woman, a man must sacrifice, which is the basis of love. That was my point.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:43am

                Cool bigoted generalizations about an entire marginalized group of people, bro.

                Read the Bible, it spells it all out in detail.

                How much of the Bible do you believe in, and how much of that do you take completely literally?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 9:03pm

                  Re:

                  Try to look at the situation with how men feel about homosexuals in context - no one I know (and no one here) denies the sexual motivation behind homosexuality - that is, that homosexuals prefer very frequent sex, usually above and beyond what normal women provide. No one should be demeaned if they reject an unwanted sexual overture. Women can say no. Men can say no, too.

                  Women have the right to feel slightly disgusted towards men who make unwanted sexual advances. No one would dispute that basic right. Men feel disgusted by homosexuals that make unwanted sexual advances too. For the most part, homosexual make sexual advances all too frequently, towards other men. Yuck. I don’t like it, other men don’t like it, we feel slightly disgusted by it, just like women do.

                  That does not make us homophobic - it is a normal reaction to an unwanted sexual advance, by either men or women towards either men or women. Not homophobic at all. Just a normal response to something that we are not interested in (at all).

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 9:44pm

                    homosexuals prefer very frequent sex

                    How do you know, with the absolute certainty of God, that every homosexual in the world prefers to have sex on a frequent basis? How do you define “frequent” in this context? What do you consider “sex” in this context?

                    Try to look at the situation with how men feel about homosexuals in context[.] … No one should be demeaned if they reject an unwanted sexual overture. Women can say no. Men can say no, too.

                    …this really makes you sound like you think gay men are rapists. I hope that was not your intent.

                    Men feel disgusted by homosexuals that make unwanted sexual advances too.

                    I notice that you keep referring to straight men as “men” and gay men as “homosexuals”. How does it feel to have someone point out that the way you talk about gay men and homosexuality indicates how you think of gay men as subhuman?

                    As for the “homosexual advances” bit: Hold onto that thought…

                    homosexual make sexual advances all too frequently, towards other men

                    Th…they’re gay men. What the hell did you expect them to do, go up to women and offer them a free muff dive? (And again: Do not think your “men”/“homosexual” dichotomy has gone unnoticed.)

                    I don’t like it, other men don’t like it, we feel slightly disgusted by it[.] … That does not make us homophobic - it is a normal reaction to an unwanted sexual advance[.]

                    You can refuse a gay man’s sexual advances without acting like that gay man flirtng with you is akin to getting severe food poisoning or being forced to watch The Room on 24-hour repeat. You can just say “I’m straight” to the guy; if he keeps hitting on you/harassing you, you can go find someone to help you—preferably without violence.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:53pm

                      Re:

                      If a woman slaps a guy for unwanted sexual advances, no one would blame her. If she kicked him in the balls, same story, her behavior is understandable. Are you sexist? Women can kick men in the balls, but men cannot kick men in the balls for the same behavior? How weird is that?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 11:48pm

                        Re: Re:

                        If you get hit on by a gay guy and your first thought is, 'I gotta kick this guy in the nuts,' that's messed up.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:09am

                          Re: Re: Re:

                          You are making an overly broad generalization. It is not always wrong to kick the person making a sexual advance in the nuts, for women or men. Sometimes it is not only appropriate and warranted, it is deserved and just.

                          There is nothing wrong with putting people on notice, men and women, gay and straight, that the vast majority of people do not want sexual advances from anyone, and if they do, they will make it very clear first. Unwanted sexual advances deserve no respect, and often, direct action to make the point clear is helpful to everyone including the violator.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 5:58am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "You are making an overly broad generalization."

                            You did it first by implying all gay guys are sex-hungry fuck machines. Do you hate it when someone generalizes you into a stereotype or whatever?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 6:07am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              If you have a case then state your case. I was stating my case and my life experience, honestly and openly. State yours if you have a different one. Why not?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:23pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              My point was that in this age of “MeToo” why is it out of bounds to point out that unwanted homosexual sexual advances are AT LEAST as inappropriate as heterosexual unwanted sexual advances? If some random lady can ruin the career of a respected jurist with an UNVERIFIED ACCUSATION that she won’t even make, why should homosexuals be immune from the consequences of their untoward behavior (which in my experience is more frequent and aggressive)?

                              Or is it only “old white men” that are subject to attack, while homosexuals can make their advances with impunity and without consequence?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Anton Sherwood (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:46pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                “old white men” like Kevin Spacey and Bill Cosby?

                                (hm, oh dear, I'm older than Kavanaugh)

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 11:01pm

                                Unwanted sexual advances are inappropriate (at bare minimum) regardless of who is on either side of the “conversation”. What I take issue with is how you all but admit that if a straight man feels so threatened/disgusted/whatever by the mere idea of being macked on by a gay man, the straight man’s first instinct should be to commit an act of violence against that gay man. What gay person would ever be friends with you if they knew you believe a straight person should be able to hurt gay people for what could possibly be a harmless mistaken flirtation?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 5:07am

                                  Re:

                                  Yes, Stephen, we come from different cultures. I don’t even know what being “macked on” means, and I don’t care to look it up.

                                  In some cultures (like mine), we find sexual advances of men towards men really offensive, and violence can occur from either side at any time, because the interaction is so offensive to both parties.

                                  What being “macked on” is, I think I am giving you good advice to say don’t try “macking” on anyone without expecting violent repercussions. Just don’t do it. It’s offensive.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Sep 2018 @ 5:22am

                                    Re: Re:

                                    we find sexual advances of men towards men really offensive, and violence can occur from either side at any time

                                    Gay men are not more likely to hit a straight man for turning them down. Gay men are more likely to be hurt or even killed for flirting with a straight man. The fact that you condone—and possibly encourage—such violence against gay men says a lot about you. None of it is good. So please fuck off back to whatever anti-gay forum you came from and stay there. No one wants to hear your shit any more.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 6:07am

                                      Re: Re: Re:

                                      Show me the study that says gay men are less violent than straight men. That’s just an outright lie. Gay men can be just as abusive and predatory as straight men, if not more so, from my experience.

                                      Saying NO to sexual advances is OK. Saying it with some degree of violence is totally appropriate in some circumstances, for men or women, straight or gay. Everyone should be a little careful, that is a basic tenant of a healthy society. Sexual relationships are to be revered and not entered into lightly. That’s a good thing.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        The Wanderer (profile), 24 Sep 2018 @ 8:25am

                                        Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                        It's becoming increasingly clear, over the course of this conversation, that you probably do not qualify as a tenant of a healthy society.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 12:49pm

                                          Re: Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                          I am not sure when left-leaning societal values become so bizarre. I would guess that most people on this forum would defend smashing someone in the head with a bicycle lock in order to protest “hate speech” (which means anything they don’t like) being spoken out loud on a University campus, but would be shocked and appalled that an unwanted sexual advance might deserve a hard slap in the face or punch in the nose.

                                          I saw that someone on CNN said violence was OK if it was applied in a “just cause” like opposing free (hate) speech (ANTIFA). That kind of violence is OK, busting windows OK, setting fire to food carts OK. But defending yourself from someone who makes physical sexual advances on your person is uncalled for and unhealthy.

                                          What a world.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Anton Sherwood (profile), 24 Sep 2018 @ 1:58pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                            For whatever it's worth, here's one participant who denounces the concept of “hate speech” as a grounds for violence.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            The Wanderer (profile), 25 Sep 2018 @ 4:57am

                                            Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                            Congratulations; you would appear to have missed my point.

                                            (Hint: look up "tenant".)

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2018 @ 5:50am

                                              Re: Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                              I don’t think I need to look the word up - I’ve been a LandLord for long enough to understand what a tenant is.

                                              Maybe you point could be made more clearly.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Anton Sherwood (profile), 25 Sep 2018 @ 8:44am

                                                Re: Re: Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                                The point, I think, was to mock you for misspelling _tenet_.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  The Wanderer (profile), 26 Sep 2018 @ 4:51am

                                                  Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                                  Or more charitably, to obliquely point out the misspelling, in a possibly-humorous way.

                                                  But yes, to the extent that there was a joke involved, he was intended to be the butt of it.

                                                  (...and now I'm wondering if he'll manage to miss, and take offense at, that idiom as well.)

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 10:06am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "Macking on" just means "hitting on," you dullard.

                                        Here's your study: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf

                                        Gay men had the lowest lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. If heterosexual women have a higher rate of prevalence experiencing those behaviors than gay men, then gay men must be less violent.

                                        Saying no to sexual advances is fine, but doing so with violence should always be a last resort. I get the impression that you think it's totally fine to punch a man in the balls if he offers to buy you a drink. Here's a clue: in that scenario you're the violent one, not the gay man. Now, obviously things like unwanted sexual advances may be different, but even a forced kiss or groping in a public setting is far more appropriately dealt with by pushing the aggressor back and shouting your disapproval loud enough to get attention. Put it this way: would it be acceptable to cunt-punt a woman who tried to kiss you at a bar? If your answer is no, then why is it different when dealing with another man?

                                        Lastly, the gay men I've been friends with haven't been the super aggressive predators you're making them out to be. I'm straight but have been the designated driver for friends on their trips to the local gay bar. When other patrons would offer to buy me a drink I would just explain the situation and that would be the end of it. They're more interested in meeting fellow gay men than in trying to convert straight men. I never once felt threatened, and quite a few times got free appetizers or attaboys for being the DD. I'm secure enough in my sexuality not to feel attacked by a casual flirtation, and in a way it was even flattering, just like it's flattering when a woman does the same today even though I'm married. I'm secure enough in my relationship with my wife that I can turn down any advances without feeling attacked and it's nice to know that I still have the ability to attract other women's attention even though I'm off the market.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 8:28pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Four in 10 gay men (40%), nearly half of bisexual men (47%), and 1 in 5 heterosexual men (21%) have experienced SV other than rape in their lifetime. This translates into nearly 1.1 million gay men, 903,000 bisexual men, and 21.6 million heterosexual men.

                                          What the hell?

                                          When I read your study, it appeared that heterosexual men experienced less violence than homosexual men or women or bisexual men or women.

                                          Your paper seems to indicate that gay and lesbian and bisexual individuals visit more violence on each other than straight people.

                                          Was that your point?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2018 @ 11:40pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          To your point about a “forced kiss”, I personally would do my best to kick the shit out of the perpetrator (assuming it was a man). Happily. And I fully believe I would be doing society a favor.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 3:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wanna play the bash people with Religion game? Fine then...

                The Bible and Christianity as a whole tends to promote the idea that god is kind to all and that those who follow him should do the same. The idea that people should be kind and generous even to those they don't agree with, so others may see the influence of god within them.

                So tell us then why some Christians act so hostile to those of other religions or sexual orientations? Instead of kindness they receive anger; belittlement; abuse of all forms; among other negative responses.

                By failing to follow God's ideals of kindness, those same Christians fail to show god's influence. In fact, they even turn others away.

                Given that knowledge, why are some christians so eager to turn their back on their own God's teachings?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 8:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I wasn’t bashing gay people with religion. I was bashing the idea that people have no choice about their own behavior. Of course people have choice about their own behavior. The Bible just spells out some methods and procedures about how to behave well and the benefits of behaving well.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Sep 2018 @ 9:24pm

                    A straight man can choose to fellate another man, but the act alone does not turn that straight man into a gay one. And besides, if being gay is a choice, so is being straight, but the only gay people who have chosen to “act straight” are ones who were either hiding in the closet or the victims of “conversion ‘therapy’ ”.

                    And since you seem to want a Bible fight…

                    The Bible just spells out some methods and procedures about how to behave well and the benefits of behaving well.

                    …well, The Old Testament says all of the following acts warrant some kind of punishment, up to and including the death penalty:

                    • Lying about virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) [This one applies to girls who still live in their fathers' homes, lie about their virginity, and present themselves to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent, by the way.]

                    • Being one of the majority of women who don’t bleed when losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21) [If she doesn’t bleed when she has sex for the first time, she has committed a crime for which she can be put to death.]

                    • If an engaged female virgin, being raped in a city (Deuteronomy 22:23-27) [Read that again: The woman is considered a criminal worthy of the death penalty for something that happened to her, not something she did. If she is raped in a field, however, she escapes punishment because no one would have heard her screams. Yeah…]

                    • Having sex with a woman who is menstruating (Leviticus 20:18) [“Did you have sex with a woman on her period? You get to literally go meet God!”]

                    • Eating anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19) [Eating that cheeseburger last week did not make God happy.]

                    • Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17) […yeah, good luck avoiding this “crime” these days.]

                    • Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7–8) [This is avoidable, yes, but damn does bacon taste good.]

                    • Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10) [You can eat seafood so long as you do not eat shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, or mussels. Eating any of those gets you booked on a direct trip to Hell, you dirty sinner.]

                    • Eating any meat not killed according to the Kosher practice (Deuteronomy 12:21) [You better know a Jewish butcher.]

                    • Being a male who is not circumcised (Genesis 17:14) [“If his dick has foreskin, send him to Satan! …okay the rhyme needs some work, but the foundation is there!”]

                    • Trying to convert people to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20) [This applies to people who try to preach any other religion. Trying to convert people into Christianity regardless of their religion is apparently fine and dandy, though.]

                    • Blaspheming (Leviticus 24:14-16,23) [Make a joke about God and it will be the last joke you ever make.]

                    • Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36) [Doesn’t matter if you think of Saturday or Sunday as the Sabbath—if you break the Sabbath for any reason, you’re going to Hell.]

                    • Being a town that believes in another, non-YHWH god (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) [The entire town is murdered, its animals are killed, the town itself is burned down, and the people who do believe in that other god are burned as well.]

                    • Performing any work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10) [You might want to see if you can get Saturday/Sunday off.]

                    • Ignoring the judgment of a judge or a priest (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) [These days, ignoring a judge gets you jail time/fines, while ignoring a priest gets you a stern lecture from the pulpit. Back then, both got you killed.]

                    • Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9) [“Did you just call me a ‘bitch’, young man? I brought you into this world and the Bible says I can take you out of it!”]

                    • Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth (Leviticus 19:19) [Wearing damn near any modern clothing would be cause for punishment.]

                    • Dressing across gender lines (Deuteronomy 22:5) [Women can’t wear three-piece suits and men can’t wear dresses. So much for that RuPaul show.]

                    And before you claim that the New Testament undoes all those laws: Excluding certain episodes that claim he interpreted laws in a relaxed way (e.g., the Sabbath working law), Jesus never explicitly said the old laws were invalid. Dispensations from following them largely came as a result of the spread of Christianity to non-Jews by Paul of Tarsus. Jesus even endorses Mosaic Law in Matthew 5:18, where he said, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

                    So, uh…how many of those acts that I listed above do you believe should be worthy of any kind of punishment, let alone the death penalty?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 10:56pm

                      Re:

                      I have no idea what you are talking and did not read your points closely once I understood they were way off point.

                      Can you summarize WITF you were trying to say, or is it just nonsense that you copied from someone else?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:19am

                        Re: Re:

                        He was handing you your ass. Argumentatively speaking. It’s no wonder you didn’t understand.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 2:10am

                          Re: Re: Re:

                          Then it doesn’t count, does it?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 6:06am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Ain't his fault you're too stupid to understand. His point was that the bible says nothing about the benefits of not doing those things. It only says, 'Don't do these things or you'll make God cry'. I can think of several reasons why religious leaders might tell people to behave this way or that under threat of a divine vengeance -- especially women.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 7:03am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              “His point was the Bible says nothing about the benefits of not doing those things.”

                              What?

                              The Bible is a roadmap to live a life you can be proud of, and so that you can die with the certainty that you have done your best in every way possible. If you have that certainty, then God will look into your soul and see it as surely as the light of day.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:32am

                                The Bible is a roadmap to live a life you can be proud of

                                Go back to the list of actions prohibited by the Bible that I posted earlier. Read all of them. Other than the prohibition against not following the judgment of a judge and the rules that pertain exclusively to women, how many of those Biblical laws—none of which were explicitly rescinded by Jesus—do I need to follow so I can “live a life [I] can be proud of” and avoid going to Hell?

                                The Bible is not the inerrant word of an omniscient deity (or his demigod son). It is a collection of stories by multiple authors who existed centuries ago and lacked the scientific knowledge we have now (hence why the Bible suggests that the sun revolves around a flat Earth). The Bible presents rules and laws for living a “good life”, but primarily presents punishments for breaking those rules/laws instead of talking about the actual benefits of following them. (The prohibition on shrimp from Deuteronomy, for example, says nothing about why eating shrimp is “unclean”.) All of those rules were made and upheld to keep the rank-and-file believers in line so none of them would dare to (publicly) question Christian dogma.

                                You keep implying that the Bible prohibits gay men{1} from having sex with each other. I have a few questions, then:

                                • If two asexual gay people enter into a committed romantic relationship with one another and never once have any kind of sex, what have those people done wrong in the eyes of God?

                                • If we are all made in the image of God, and God has a plan for us all, and God loves all His children equally, for what reason would He even care about two gay people (out of seven billion people in general) having sex with each other?

                                • If being gay is as much of a choice as what to eat for breakfast (as you keep implying), and being gay is determined by participation in gay sex acts (as you keep implying), and simply being gay risks divine punishment from God in Heaven (as well as violent punishment from people on Earth), what rational person would ever choose to be gay?

                                • Corollary to the above question: If a straight man is raped by another straight man or a gay woman is raped by a straight man, what does that say about the sexual orientation of the victims?

                                • What do you believe can turn a gay person straight, and vice versa?

                                • What makes the social life/the sexual activity of a gay person something you need to worry about if it does not personally affect your life?

                                • Who bestowed upon you the right to speak for God and claim, with His absolute certainty, what He wants from His children?

                                I expect a smug deflection and more religious prattle that you hope helps you avoid having to confront your implicit (and explicit) bigotry. Feel free to prove me wrong.

                                {1} — In my experience, whenever the subject of homosexuality comes up, especially in a discussion among men, that discussion tends to exclude gay women. Funny how that works.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Will B., 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:46am

                                  Stephen

                                  Please stop feeding the troll. Dude's obviously just fucking around.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:14am

                                    Re: Stephen

                                    Oh likely so, but the troll doesn't seem to realise what trouble may come to him down the line if he tries that anywhere else... better to overfeed him

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:43pm

                                      Re: Re: Stephen

                                      Trouble will come to me if I express my opinion, based on my own experience? Is there a Gay “police force” to silence opinions they don’t care for? What “trouble” are you threatening?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    nasch (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 10:02am

                                    Re: Stephen

                                    Please stop feeding the troll. Dude's obviously just f***ing around.

                                    I think he really believes it.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:46pm

                                      Re: Re: Stephen

                                      I believe my own experience and personal interviews with gay people more than I believe random anonymous cowards and other people using fake names and fake identities to push a fake agenda.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Anton Sherwood (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:27pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Stephen

                                        Most of the gay people I've known were over thirty; maybe that accounts for the difference between your experience and mine (which includes sharing a flat with two; not a couple).

                                        Or maybe your informants were pulling your leg.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 9:39pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen

                                          Well, thank you for that.

                                          The fellow that really shocked me was the one that told me he had sex with more than 365 different men in one year. Such a thing had never entered my mind, until I heard it personally recounted from this fellow. As I remember, he was in his late 20’s, maybe early 30’s.

                                          When I recounted his bragging to other gay people, I never heard anyone gay denounce him, they seemed to admire him, smirking in the process.

                                          Maybe I have never recovered from the shock of his disclosure, and how far it deviated from my belief system about normal and healthy behavior, I don’t know, I do remember being shocked nearly beyond belief. What do you think your gay friends would think? Would they be shocked, or sympathetic?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  The Wanderer (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 11:38am

                                  [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                  If two asexual gay people enter into a committed romantic relationship with one another and never once have any kind of sex, what have those people done wrong in the eyes of God?

                                  Okay, I have a parse error here, and I think it comes down to incompatible definitions. What definition of "asexual" are you using?

                                  As I understand the terms, "asexual" means "not sexually attracted to anyone or anything" (and/or "possessed of no sex drive or other sexual impulses whatsoever", which I think would be a superset of the other), and "gay" as applied to sexuality means "sexually attracted to persons of the same gender".

                                  Since being simultaneously attracted to the same gender and to no one at all would be contradictory and therefore impossible, I infer that you must be using a different definition, but I don't know what it might be.

                                  (I could maybe grope in the direction of something by looking at terms like "homoromantic", as distinct from "homosexual", since the two don't always coincide - but I'm not at all sure that what I'd arrive at would be the right answer, and at the very least the former of those two, alone, is not what I think of when I encounter the word "gay".)

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 12:24pm

                                    Re: [OT] Terms for sexualities

                                    For the sake of brevity (and not throwing out terms that might confuse others or not be widely accepted), I chose to use the phrase “asexual gay person” as a substitute for “homoromantic asexual person”.{1} I apologize for any confusion I caused by my decision, and I will try to be more specific about that sort of language from now on.

                                    {1} I still believe a homoromantic asexual person would likely still be considered “gay” in casual/“everyday” terms, just as a heteromantic asexual person would likely be considered “straight”. Whether they choose to accept or deny such labels, for whatever reason, is their business.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 25 Sep 2018 @ 5:43am

            Re: Re:

            "Black people can act like white people anytime they want. Just drop the intentionally incorrect grammar, put a belt on to hold your pants up, tie your shoes, get a job and support a family. There. You’re white, in almost all respects. Talk white, work white, act white, you’re as white as any white, maybe whiter because you tried harder."

            Wow, that's some A-grade racism you've got there, champ. Most of the black people I know dress decently, speak well, and are personally responsible. As are the northern and southern Asians. Meanwhile, many of the white people I know are irresponsible and dress and speak poorly.

            So... what do we learn from this, kiddies? That's right, being respectable and personally responsible is not a race thing, it's a personal choice thing. It's not even an economic thing: people choose to either be responsible or irresponsible depending on the size of their imaginary entitlements.

            Drop the racism, move away from the racism, and go and make friends outside your bubble. You might be surprised.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bill-o-rights, 23 Sep 2018 @ 7:33am

        Re: Re: You do NOT have the right "not to be offended"...

        Did you read the article at all?

        <quote>has a scene where a corrupt police officer treats two suspects differently</quote>

        The girl called the character, a corrupt cop, a pig.

        Corrupt cop = pig ... Hell yes, and a lot worse.

        I know of several locations, in and around St. Louis, where every "township" (not town, not city, but township) has it's own police department so that they can get a cut of the fines.
        They alternate speed-limits 25 to 35, to 20, to 45, to 15, every other block.
        Once a person is pulled over, for either speeding, or another infraction, and ticketed, a message goes out down the line.

        The person ticketed, trying to adjust their speed every other minute or less, usually ends up with multiple tickets. This is especially true if it is for something like a fix-it-ticket - like a tail-light or head-light out.

        I personally ran across a town police chief who constantly covered his wife who habitually stole money from the register depending on whether or not the person making the purchase asked for a receipt. I was one of the people caught up by the wife's actions after not asking for my receipt.

        Thankfully, being friends with the County Sheriff - who was one of the good cops, as well as one of the Sergeants of the police force, under the corrupt Chief, we ended up getting the Chief and his wife placed behind bars for several years.

        So yeah, after personally knowing a handful of cops and finding 1 out of 5 to be corrupt, would allow for 20% corrupt to be claimed, but I doubt that it is that high.

        But even 1 in 10, or 1 in 100 is too many. Hell 1 in a million is too many.

        As long as there is even one bad cop within our country, they will continue to be derided, made fun of, called out for being the pig they are.

        Why? Because even if there was only 1 bad cop in the entire country, all of the other cops that serve with that bad cop, do nothing, absolutely nothing to end that bad cop's career in law enforcement.

        That places those otherwise good cops in the same boat as the bad cop. Guilt by association. In fact, one could say they were co-conspirators for any crime(s) committed by the "bad cop" because they didn't take action to reign in the bad cop's behavior.

        Add in the lovely first amendment, and yeah, I'll call bad cops pigs, I'll call them worse than pigs and there's not a damned thing you can say that will change my mind about that.

        As I keep saying, nobody has the right "not to be offended". So fuck the corrupt pigs, and fuck you for coming to the defense of the corrupt pigs.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 2:45pm

    School pensions

    The school officials involved should be stripped of their pensions to pay any legal fees and fines.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:10pm

      Re: School pensions

      They should just lose their qualified immunity leaving them open to financial ruin over the lawsuit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anton Sherwood (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 3:37pm

    if the shoe fits

    The cop in question is not only fictional, he explicitly misbehaves in a way that might cause even a non-cop to be called a pig.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2018 @ 5:04pm

    "Stupid..."

    "Stupidstupidstupid (PDF)

    Stupidstupidstupid (Text)"

    Kudos, that's a truly inspired name it. :)

    --dg100

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pixelation, 21 Sep 2018 @ 7:27pm

    I think the school would have preferred that she call him a rose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2018 @ 4:40pm

      Re:

      How does that famous quote go again...

      "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

      Clearly Shakespeare was wrong, cause everything about this surely stinks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 7:52pm

    as to racial slur in question..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ryunosuke (profile), 21 Sep 2018 @ 8:17pm

      Re: as to racial slur in question..

      Sorry hit enter on accident.

      I would not say it, but at the same time I am not offended by it under very very very VERY specific instances. Rush Hour and Chocolate Sundae Comedy are two prime examples of who can and cannot say it under said circumstances. (In general, just don't)

      As to the admins just casually tossing it out, I find that MORE offensive than the actual slur itself.

      The problem then becomes BLM vs ALM. All lives matter should be a given, but.... that's not what BLM is about (even I know that). When was the last time you even heard of a Black gang member getting paid vacation for a drive-by? When was the last time an LEO got a harsher punishment for Purgery against the court under oath?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2018 @ 8:25am

    Some of these comments ... wow

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dan T., 23 Sep 2018 @ 2:54pm

    Anti-police "Hate Speech"

    The Spanish government had a similar attitude to these administrators when it attempted to pursue hate-speech charges against Catalan teachers who conducted a class discussion about the Spanish police who beat up people attempting to vote in an independence referendum, saying that such discussion was hateful to children whose parents were cops.

    http://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/teachers-charged-with-hate-speech-remain-under- investigation

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2018 @ 5:40pm

      'Highlighting our atrocities is hateful!'

      It's 'hateful' to discus police beating up people attempting to vote, simply because their parents might be cops? Yeah, no, as attempts to justify a 'hate-speech lawsuit' that one is beyond pathetic.

      If their parents were involved, then they deserve to have their abhorrent actions called out. If they weren't, then it's not talking about them. And if its 'hateful' to bring it up, how hateful is it to act like it didn't happen, for those who's parents were beat up?

      This assumes it even happened anyway, the article talks about the director denying even that, noting that in a group of students in the three to six-year old range such a discussion would be near impossible to manage, so the truth of the matter would seem to be up in the air still.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 2:00pm

    All fictional cops are pigs, but some pigs are more equal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.