Skip to main content

Reply to "Teacher suspended for ten days, after calling student Nigga!"

quote:
I've told you what I think, you've had a load of fun attacking that, now heres something you can attack and possibly get somewhere. Why I think it.
JACO! The whole point here is that YOU GETS NOWHERE WITH YOUR FAULTY LOGIC, idiotic Circular Reasoning and Anal ABSTRACTIONS!

First, foremost and ALWAYS...
THE TEACHER'S INTENT IS IRRELEVANT!

INTENT defines nor determines NOTHING! INTENT is not the End All, Be All of anything. As the saying goes, The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

The Teacher's INTENT is IRRELEVANT because:
Put simply... whatever the two parties involved in conversation perceive the meaning of a word to be, that's what the word means in that conversation.

Now, reconcile that or admit that you can go around and around and around and there is NO WAY for you to make your CIRCULAR REASONING work, much less stick.

As far as YOUR #1... That's IRRELEVANT!! I already said:
The students "sob story" notwithstanding... There is still the clear, blatant, obvious and absurd SOB STORY of the teacher that you don't and haven't scrutinized.

So, no... You gets NOWHERE until you do that and, since you insist, analyze the Teacher's actual words, actions and behaviors to determine what was or wasn't his intent. Whether what he professed was actually "credible" or not, we can determine whether he was being TRUTHFUL, deceptive or otherwise less than forthcoming when he said/did what he said/did. And, more than anything, if you're going to try to gauge what his intent is... you have to talk about what he actually did and not just what you think or call his intent. And, no, "teachers do this all the time" says little about what DAWSON actually did.

As for YOUR #2... Please... Get A GRIP!!
What are all the Mental Gymnastics (CIRCULAR Reasoning somersaults) for when the information from the story clearly stated:
District investigators interviewed several witnesses, who did not confirm Dawson's allegation about the student...

Hmmm.... Curious term, huh? ***WITNESSES***
Why what a strange thing and a strange "group" of people to consider as having credibility or actually being able to offer relevant information. Witnesses!!? Can you believe that? Witnesses?!?

Hmmm... Nothing indicated that the statement given by Mr. Ray Underwood (black student) was a WITNESS STATEMENT - i.e. a person who actually was around and actually heard and/or saw the controversial conversation/incident.

Hmmmm.... Funny how you placed a "positive" value on Mr. Underwood's statement without knowing that critical information. With that said, Mr. Underwood's statement is about as pertinent as Ricky Jones' (the Pan-African Studies chair) or, more comparably, SHAREKA MORROW'S. Now, how come you didn't list her statement as #4 or something? How come didn't give equal weight to her statement? Hers is as valuable as Underwood's when it comes to determining the teachers character (which is about all Underwood's is good for, given the information). How come you didn't include her statement in your not-so systematic consideration of DAWSON'S INTENT? She said:
"I thought it was very offensive. If you're white, you don't say it."

Now, the article was clear in saying she heard about the situation via secondhand information. The article, however, never indicates anything, one way or the other, about Mr. Underwood's knowledge of the situation - whether it was first hand or otherwise. And actually, Mr. Underwood's statement actually hinges on something I said a long time ago:
Considering how this is the hip-hop era and how the term was supposedly used frequently AMONG THE STUDENTS... the teacher had ample time and reason to teach about the term.

So, you've tried and have gotten NOWHERE with trying to claim that the INTENT was a Teaching Tool via "parody", etc. (*mocking* is much more accurate). Now, for some reason we haven't been privileged to your expositions explaining why the teacher after having presumably PLENTY of opportunities to make a Teaching Moment or draw up a lesson plan discussing the N-Word... NOTHING from you exploring WHY the teacher, whom you imbibe with such innocuous INTENT (with nothing but your own prejudices/biases to base your claim on)... NOTHING from you that says WHY he hadn't actually approached the situation in a serious, ADULT and academic manner which (hey!) as a teacher he is actually paid to do.

Mr. Underwood's statement coincides with DAWSON'S own admission:
quote:
Dawson says students use the slang version of the word at Valley High School all the time. Dawson says as much as he doesn't like the word, he still used the slang version to feel more comfortable with black students. "Why is this word used so frequently? So I just don't understand it and I'm trying to understand it."
Hmmm... Even after all that, instead of exerting an ounce of analytical power or time on WHY DAWSON NEEDED/WANTED TO FEEL [MORE] COMFORTABLE with Black Students and ever examining WHY when DAWSON suggested that he didn't or wanted to "understand" the use of the term... WHY DIDN'T HE DEVOTE REAL TEACHING TIME TOWARDS IT when he clearly would have had ample opportunity?? Especially given how students like Underwood were able to ascertain or assume that he "liked rappin'"???

EVERYTHING YOU SUGGEST falls flat. That's what CIRCULAR REASONING does for you. NOTHING!

quote:
3) We have the statements of various other groups, which make no attempt to guess the teachers intent, but simply assume that everytime the word "nigga" is used by a white person, it is meant in a racist fashion.
In this situation, given what is admitted by BOTH PARTIES, there is no way you can clean it up. THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE TEACHER'S STATEMENT, however it was "intended", can be anything other than IMPROPER and "RACIST" in effect.

How about actually keeping up and actually addressing my points?

I said and my point still remains that:
No one is ignorant of the meaning or connotation of Ni@@a when said in a condescending manner or when trying to be snide or sly or sarcastic, much less when its used in a teacher-student relationship.

DAWSON statement where he said he didn't like the term speaks volumes. He knew what the hell he was saying and he knew and had every reason to know how it was going to be received.

Put simply... whatever the two parties involved in conversation perceive the meaning of a word to be, that's what the word means in that conversation.

Okay! Now, what we clearly have he is the student, Chavers, PERCEIVING Dawson's statement as "racist", condescending, improper or whatever. Now, uphold your standard and honor the PERCEPTIONS of BOTH PARTIES. You can't justify giving one "The Benefit Of A Doubt" when you have no basis other than your AVERSION to being on the wrong side of a "double-standard" that informs your ignorant, decontextualized, off-centered and devoid of logic views.


quote:
I support the teachers punishment. I do not support the leap to the conclusion that the teacher was being racist simply because there has been cases where the word has been applied in a racist fashion.
And your "support" of the teacher's punishment changes nothing and serves as no disclaimer or caveat. It is you who have been proven to make the leaps in logic as you try, feebly, to land safely after performing all those twisted logical flips your CIRCULAR REASONING forces you to do.

Most importantly...
WHO GIVES A FUCK what you do and don't support??

quote:
KWELI said:

Since you clearly don't understand the concept, stop trying to speak as an authority.
I'll put it in my own words, WHAT YOU THINK IS NOT A STANDARD FOR ANYTHING, as proven. And you are NO AUTHORITY and, as such, NOTHING YOU SAY has any automatic credibility or authority vested in it. When you talk about what you do and don't support, that shit presupposes:

[1] That we give a shit; and
[2] That what you support matters and is suppose to mean something; that you or rather what you say or how you see things is important when in truth, all you're doing is trying to assert your self-importance of which you have NONE here. No credibility on GP here.

So, again... WHO GIVES A FUCK what you support?
Who the fuck are you? When and where did anybody here say your idea about this matters (more than anyone else's or becomes the standard by which the opinions of others are judged)??

You might want to take a long, hot, soapy shower... You're smelling yourself. And that funk is strong!


quote:
No one likes to be wrongfully accused, no matter who you are. True, our opinion will not personally affect him, but it's probably good practice to be somewhat of a decent human being and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Give him the benefit of the doubt... WHY???

That's something you obviously can't see "supporting" when it came to the student? You give an ADULT... AN ADULT... and, worst yet, A TEACHER! ...An English Teacher (someone who we agreed should know something about language)... THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT??? lol

Wait a minute... What did you say about the student?
quote:
upset "I'm letting you know I don't take this kids sob story seriously because he had obviously heard the word from his peer group before, without bringing up a huge scandal. upset
BLATANT BIAS there, JACO...

That Chavers had "heard the word from his peer group before" is IRRELEVANT. What part of a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship don't you understand? They are NOT peers. It is IMPROPER and, yes, in this case RACIST for the teacher to use a KNOWN FORBIDDEN TERM for any purpose it could have been used for in that situation.

The way Chavers would have used or heard the N-Word used amongst his peers is fundamentally different than anything the teacher could have said because HE WAS A TEACHER stupid!! Dawson was not and is not Chavers' peer.

But thanks for showing your prejudice in clear and convincing fashion.
quote:
We still should give reason due process.
And, using that CIRCULAR version, you have not done so.



Now, say this (below) real slow and witness for yourself how you have abandoning sound reasoning trying to assert and defend your weird and twisted (and untenable) CIRCULAR REASONING:
No one likes to be told that they can't do something they would like to do.

Now, since you're in to telling WHY... LOL
Why do you suppose White people "would like to" call Black people "ni@@er", "ni@@a", etc.?

And... NO ONE SAID THIS! STAY ON TOPIC!!
Frown It is racist if you're assuming all white people want to be racist. Frown

And, again, you pretend to be an authority as if what you say is so, just because you say so. Please stop smelling yourself and get off the low-tech BULLSHIT! No one said anything about ALL WHITE people. IDIOT!! This situation, when you want to talk about probability, can't possibly incorporate ALL WHITE people for ALL WHITE people aren't driven to trip over the so-called "double-standard" of who can use and who can't use the N-Word. So what are you talking about?

quote:
The students involved take offense at the word only if white people say it. There is, as you say, history to explain why this occurs, however it is still only a reason behind the bigotry and not an excuse for the bigotry. Verdict, bigotry.
That SHIT does not logically compute. More of your pathetic CIRCULAR REASONING... Go on now... Read up and take some lessons or something. You're just not capable of discussing things here. Your reasoning, YOUR CIRCULAR REASONING leaves a lot to be desired.

But, go ahead... Actually translate that bullshit into real, intelligible, coherent ENGLISH!!

quote:
You obviously think the english teacher was being racist, despite his knowledge of how the students peers used the word in everyday conversation, and from that, his knowledge of how to use it himself in everyday conversation as is the fashion.
You obviously DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

There is no "everyday" conversation where a teacher can effectively speak as a student's peer [does]. Now, what part of that do you find hard to grasp?

Such speech, such communication is inherently problematic and IMPROPER and the teachers INTENTIONAL desire to "communicate" TO BLACK STUDENTS (note, he did not say the rainbow, hip-hop generation) is, itself, RACIALIZED. So, by your own abstract definitions what the teacher said was RACIST!!

quote:
If it makes you feel better to win, I'll admit that there are differences between the two
STFU!!! You said: "Bigotry is bigotry." By saying that you were emphatically saying (and unequivocally saying, then) that THE TWO ARE THE EXACT SAME or rather amount to the same exact thing with there being no significant differences.

Beyond that, given your poor displaying of coherent and comprehendable ENGLISH!!! You have not establish how the student's or any Black person's idea that NO WHITE PERSON CAN SAY "NI@@A" amounts to "bigotry" or "racism". Hmmm...

quote:
I've been explaining his story the whole time
BULLSHIT!!! You've been displaying your personal prejudices and injecting your ideas and transposing them on the teachers without no regard for the teacher's actual story.

quote:
I fail to see the conflict.
And that truth is not contingent on you acknowledging it as such.

You clearly did not privilege the perceived meanings of BOTH PARTIES equally. That is clear.
quote:
If the teacher was making a parody
See... that's exactly what you have transposed and imposed without cause or reason. Did the teacher say or suggest he was making "parody."???

That conflicts with the idea that he was merely using youthful slang as he tried to relate to Chavers in ways his peers do. Certainly his peers aren't about making parody.

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited {1}
×
×
×
×