“They basically told me that I should be ashamed of myself,” Timonet told a local news outlet. “That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.”
The principal inserted their religion into their job at a public school.
I’d get the dance team members in on it for vaguely impugning their reputations, because when asked why nothing happened to them, the answer more or less had the implied subtext “that’s fine for them because we expect them to act like hoes, but you’re our hood ornament and should behave better.”
edit: in case anyone is unclear on my position regarding twerking
I agree. She’s literally getting punished for having fun with her friends at a dance party. And her friends should get the same restitution because they were also, having fun. God forbid this incredibly intelligent girl go on to be anything but an avenue for childbirth, or her friends don’t follow the same path
Seems like the easiest way to get into a really good school would be to sue, whip up a media frenzy, and frame it through a feminist lens. Write an essay about overcoming adversity by standing up for what is right, no matter the cost.
It’s crazy. She lost benefits over something somebody else did. I can’t make sense of it. The dogma and brining faith and religious righteousness into everything is out on hand and needs to stop
It has everything to do with it because god said so:
“They basically told me that I should be ashamed of myself,” Timonet told a local news outlet. “That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.” “I felt like my life was over.”
Guys, it’s the same rules as any underaged closet atheist. Study your ass off, become financially independent, then twerk in front of your god fearing scholarship committee
I mean if you’re going to be that pedantic about a comment that doesn’t strike me as intending to be nuanced and specific, there are versions of Christianity that are fine with twerking too
Satanism is only necessary because religion is cancer though. Just like cancer, we need to use another thing that kills to kill it. I’m 100% in agreement with Satanism’s tenants, but it’s because they’re just humanist ideals wrapped in the garb of religion to use religion as a tool.
All religions are tools. Saying “religion is cancer” overlooks all of the good things that people get out of religion, such as a community with shared values that helps each other. If you can have a religion without superstition and dogma, where’s the harm? It’s not religion that’s cancer. It’s superstition and dogma.
Sure, but the term religion implies superstition and dogma. It’s literally part of the definition. What is religion without that? Community and tax exempt status? The former is just called community (which also implies shared values) and the latter is mostly a scam.
I’m not saying good things can’t come from religion, but they don’t come because they are religious. Any good they do is done regardless (or often despite) the supernatural beliefs.
Sure, but the term religion implies superstition and dogma. It’s literally part of the definition.
Definitions have to comport with reality, not the other way around. Satanism is not a social club. We have holidays, we have rituals, we have ministers who conduct wedding ceremonies. We even have church services.
I want to let you know I’m not the one downvoting you. I disagree, but I’m not downvoting.
Personally, I don’t think The Satanic Temple should be considered a religion. I think the term has been watered down, particularly in the US, because our laws are stupid. As long as there is an incentive to be called a religion it should be, but there shouldn’t be an incentive. Why should anyone’s beliefs be valued more because they’re tied to (usually at least) supernatural beliefs?
TST was created as religious satire. That’s the reason for the holidays, riguals, and other services. They need to conform to the appearance of a religion to work as a religion for their own purposes. That isn’t to say these are bad or wrong. They’re just as valid as any other religion. It’s just that the belief that it’s founded on is humanism, not something supernatural.
Why should anyone’s beliefs be valued more because they’re tied to (usually at least) supernatural beliefs?
TST agrees with you. In fact, this is almost word-for-word what it says in the FAQ under the question “If you don’t believe in the supernatural, how is TST a religion?”
TST was created as religious satire. That’s the reason for the holidays, riguals, and other services.
The mother said in response to the principal’s apology,
“It’s too little, too late. I even told him on the phone conversation when he made it to us at noon today asking us to come into the office and he mentioned reinstating the scholarship, I let him know that the scholarship deadline was done, and the damage that he’s done to her is done. I also told him I gave them the opportunity when I came in there at 7 o’ clock the next morning, to try and rectify the situation at that point. Now, with somebody holding his hand forcing him to do something, an apology being enforced it’s too late,” said Rachel Timonet
Fuck the school system! It’s never been about educating children. It’s only about conditioning children to blindly accept what they’re told by authority.
From my experience, if people are not assholes, there is always a way. I’ve been accepted to a school when I missed the deadline by two weeks regardless.
Unless the school system in the USA is strict and non-negotiable.
At this point if anyone ever brings up religion to me outside of work, I’m just gonna shit on it. Tolerating religion is morally bad and religion should be as taboo as smoking.
Religion is like a penis. You can do whatever you want with it at home, but don’t go waving it in people’s faces, and especially keep it away from children.
Would you be ok with people being Nazis at home? If someone commits to an ideology at home, it affects their entire personality/interactions. I’d argue this is a form of tolerance which is bad.
Would you be ok with surveilling everyone to make sure they are not Nazis? While I am uncomfortable with the knowledge that there are some people out there who are Nazis in secret, that is still much better than them feeling comfortable enough to be Nazis in the open.
Also I would prefer even Nazis marauding in the streets to universal surveillance, which for me at least is hardly imaginable without at least a little Nazi ideology at government level.
Also I was talking about religion which in contrast to Nazi-ideology can be benign, when practiced in private.
I wasnt advocating for surveiling everyone. I was suggesting creating an atmosphere that continuously shuts down religion just like we do with Nazism. I accept that not everyone agrees with Nazis, but our general consensus is that Nazis are bad. The same cannot be said for our general consensus of religion.
These groups get their legitimacy and authority by following an ideology everyone worships. There’s a reason why Scientology is seen as a stupid idea while Christianity/Islam are “ways of life.” It’s because the latter religions are popular and they become legitimate because of popularity. That’s why I think it’s really important to shame anyone who considers themselves a true religious person, to errode that legitimacy.
So the girl in question wasn’t twerking, it was person “friend” in front of her in the video. She was just dancing. I consider myself pretty logical in most things and this doesn’t make sense.
The person in question did not commit any offense her self based on how the news article read. If she herself was doing something that did not promote a good image it would be understandable but this was not the case.
I can agree to a certain point but as this particular scholarship is only handed to two people a year I imagine the requirements are very high and the standard at which one conducts themselves is taken into account. Never the less I do not understand and cannot condone punishing those that do not deserve it.
This girl must have worked hard for such a scholarship and to be denied what she earned for such a bizarre reason just seems petty and small.
“That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.” So a state institution imposing religious virtues on a student? How is that constitutional, something for the ACLU perhaps?
We really need to move to a standard which doesn’t judge people by their behaviour outside the professional setting. I suspect half the people lamenting this would be cheering it if she expressed opinions or behaviour they disagreed with. We need to have laws in place to protect people to do offensive things, or make offensive statements, which have nothing to do with their school or workplace.
The severity is quite different, but the premise is not. These are both offensive things to different people. Either we allow institutions to police offensive things outside their walls, or we don’t. What you’re communicating to me is you’d like to be emperor of America, and only you can fairly arbitrate these things. I’ll let you in on a little secret: everyone thinks that. That’s why we have democracy.
Wdym you want people to have principled opinions on cancel culture? We’re on the internet, here we doxx hold people accountable for the things we don’t like and complain when the wrong people face repercussions of their behavior outside their jobs
Either you support the concept of free speech, or you don’t. Such a law would need to protect all speech, not just speech you personally find permissible.
Because I don’t want to give some unelected bureaucrats the ability to discommunicate someone because they said something stupid. Public goods are meant to serve the public, even if they have bad opinions.
I think the limit should be pretty high, but I’m fine with, as an example, people who spread abject hatred being rejected by most parts of society. I think not spreading hatred against your fellows is an integral part of the social contract.
The paradox of tolerance suggests we draw a line and decide some things are unacceptable to tolerate or the tolerant will be overwhelmed by the intolerant. I’m sure Poppers arguments are not without flaws but absolute free speech is a pipe dream.
There are limits to free speech in US laws already, some common examples are slander, libel, and threats. There’s also “imminent lawless action” where words inciting violence can be restricted.
Maybe I’m drawing a false correlation between the two ideas but in general I don’t think it’s so black and white as you might suggest.
The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher’s idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It’s not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.
I did state that his argument was not without its flaws. It still serves its purpose as a thought experiment about how a society should handle radically dissenting opinions.
I won’t pretend to know the answer in practice and censorship makes me uneasy but my debate is against free speech absolutionists.
Says who? It’s okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it’s a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that’s how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That’s what Rawls argues.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
For example, France’s ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That’s how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.
If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn’t a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I’m not trying to “both sides” this, I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves
Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
All we can do is give it our best try. It’s better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can’t get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well.
The good news is that you don’t have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.
I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
I don’t agree, but even so, you haven’t proposed an alternative yet.
Unfortunately there’s no way to codify what’s offensive. Demonizing women does seem de rigueur for schools though. Probably just have to know that going in. Probably just wipe yourself off the internet as a protective manner.
I would say it highly depends on how it reflects on the institution. Twerking has nothing to do with any possible education she might have received. Saying that black people are unintelligent but good dancers shows the attempts to educate the student has failed them, which makes the school look bad if they get the scholarship.
Similarly, I’m fine with people who got fired for participating in January 6th. Any company that kept them on could face a major boycott and those people don’t deserve their jobs because they’re insurrectionists.
But this particular girl? Totally deserves the scholarship. Twerking is not a reflection of how she was educated.
I would say it highly depends on how it reflects on the institution.
This institution felt it reflected badly on them. You’re making a lot of subjective comparisons as though they’re objective. Either the institution has the right to determine what they find acceptable, or they don’t. If they do, you have to be prepared to accept that different people value different things to you.
@JasSmith@FlyingSquid it was a public school. And they cited religious beliefs as for why they were so offended. That's a clear violation of church and state and while it's certainly not new or unique it's not defensible or right.
Add comment