Clemson professor looking to get fired...

[ChicagoTiger85]

I think that firing people for some of the comments is bordering on beta behavior but I understand the desire. If, however, you didn't think people should be fired for their comments on the attack of Paul Pelosi and the assassinations of the Minnesota lawmakers, you're just raging hypocrites.

Unfortunately, for a lot of these people it’s not about being against celebrating political violence or being against indecency. It’s just about partisanship and exercising power. It’s the same impulse that makes people think they should celebrate political assassinations of people who annoy them.

 

[SDTiger9]

To celebrate the assassination of someone because of their views is sick on so many levels & the professor deserves immediate termination! Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also deserves to be censured for mocking the assassination of the Minnesota senator & her husband in June. This hateful rhetoric from both sides must stop! Charlie Kirk’s family deserves better!

I feel insane at this point explaining why I left the parties 25 years ago. Their primary mission is self interested power. And to obtain and retain that power they LIE, BELITTLE, commit VARIOUS CRIMES to do it. All at the expense of the country they allegedly serve.

And, millions of Americans support both of these groups.

As dominant as Coke and Pepsi are. You don’t have a Coke or Pepsi influencer scolding or coercing you into buying their product when you walk down the grocery aisle. And over time, people have invoked free will to select other brands and other drinks altogether. But there was that point after years of pulling the Coke 2 Liter off the shelf and switching for the bottled water where you felt a sense of “DISLOYALTY” but you knew it was the right decision. But if a Coke henchman was standing there, it might be tough.

These parties are steeped in every possible evil and people justify their choice over the perceived “less evil” as they justify it to themselves.

Just look at handling of Epstein for 25 years. It covers both of their interests NOT to disclose it. And the facts of this case, AS WHATS IN THE PUBLIC ALREADY, would put 99% of us in jail.

Anyway, I think a REFERENDUM PARTY on the PUBLIC is required. Someone who is willing to tell the people they allow the insanity to continue voting for them and supporting all the versions of WINGED media. Continue to pull for Coke and Pepsi, the 2 clown shows who can’t keep office, and give you diabetes, hypertension and headaches. Or stand up and vote for someone who actually will impose the laws of the land…….. ON EVERYONE. Time to impose upon the people. They are ones enabling these constant shows.

 

[Rastafarian]

I wasn’t a fan of Kirk because I thought he was needlessly pro, indulged some of the dumber topics on the right, and was sycophantic towards Trump. However, you’re mischaracterizing his intentionally indelicate statements about affirmative action.

The intentional offensiveness is why some people are having a hard time being decent about his assassination. They wonder if he’d do the same about somebody of a different persuasion. That’s understandable, but not a good justification. You don’t engender more decency by being indecent.

One thing I’ve noticed with some of these events recently is there’s almost a performative cycle of goading people into being indecent, and then people doubling down on indecency just to prove they don’t care what the other side thinks. Celebrating somebody’s death and having the first thing that comes to your mind be that they deserved it because they were annoying is bad; hoping people do lots of that and hunting for it around the internet so you can confirm your own negative beliefs about people you disagree and so you can flex over them isn’t great, either.

I agree with everything you said. I wasn’t trying to justify his murder. We must protect free speech, no matter how much we disagree or how vile it is. I knew he was controversial and I don’t listen to any of these political entertainers because they just peddle agendas, but I was surprised to read these comments and was merely sharing them for perspective.

We are in a bad place where we are so divided and gaslighting each other. I think everyone on this board wants to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We want safer streets. We want access to economic opportunities. We want good schools. We want responsible spending of our tax dollars. We (I hope) want equal opportunity for all.

But instead the powers at be have convinced us that each other is the enemy while our government is sold to the highest bidder, and policy after policy is making it tougher for everyone except those in the top .0001% of net worth. We have fallen into their trap of ideology becoming identity and instead of getting pissed off at the guy who just siphoned $100mm of our tax dollars, we get pissed at our neighbor who voted differently from us.

 

[Trading Tiger]

I don't believe I suggested otherwise.

Oh c'mon now. Don't be a little biatch. Everyone knows what you meant. If you're an ahole, just own it. Backtracking like this is pathetic and embarrassing.

 

[Rastafarian]

Well if anyone knows anything about beta behavior, it’d be a limp wristed dem

This is the kind of trash comment that has us in such a **** situation. You just want to attack ideology. Libs are beta and limp wristed. And I bet I don’t have to search to hard to find a post claiming that liberals are violent. No consistency other than you just hate liberals for being liberals.

 

[Rastafarian]

I feel insane at this point explaining why I left the parties 25 years ago. Their primary mission is self interested power. And to obtain and retain that power they LIE, BELITTLE, commit VARIOUS CRIMES to do it. All at the expense of the country they allegedly serve.

And, millions of Americans support both of these groups.

As dominant as Coke and Pepsi are. You don’t have a Coke or Pepsi influencer scolding or coercing you into buying their product when you walk down the grocery aisle. And over time, people have invoked free will to select other brands and other drinks altogether. But there was that point after years of pulling the Coke 2 Liter off the shelf and switching for the bottled water where you felt a sense of “DISLOYALTY” but you knew it was the right decision. But if a Coke henchman was standing there, it might be tough.

These parties are steeped in every possible evil and people justify their choice over the perceived “less evil” as they justify it to themselves.

Just look at handling of Epstein for 25 years. It covers both of their interests NOT to disclose it. And the facts of this case, AS WHATS IN THE PUBLIC ALREADY, would put 99% of us in jail.

Anyway, I think a REFERENDUM PARTY on the PUBLIC is required. Someone who is willing to tell the people they allow the insanity to continue voting for them and supporting all the versions of WINGED media. Continue to pull for Coke and Pepsi, the 2 clown shows who can’t keep office, and give you diabetes, hypertension and headaches. Or stand up and vote for someone who actually will impose the laws of the land…….. ON EVERYONE. Time to impose upon the people. They are ones enabling these constant shows.

This is it. The majority of Americans have fallen for their trap. Millions vote every year against their own best interests because they have been brain washed with ideology.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Brother, we've all lived through the same timeline here. Do you not remember this stuff from "the right"? Acting like this stuff is just the work of the left is highly disingenuous.

How do you make these kinds of comments repeatedly with a seemingly straight face when we all have access to the facts?

Yeah, because closing down small businesses, arresting people for not following bs "social distancing" requirements while not following those same requirements yourself, firing people who would not take an experimental "vaccine"...those things are totally the same as sitting down with someone you disagree with to talk about the issues.

I've said it before, but you should really just stick to making highlight videos. Every time you post without one, you make yourself look more and more stupid.

 

[TigerGrowls]

What you’re missing is that Lee took the opportunity of the assassination of two MN Reps to try to criticize the politics of somebody he disagreed with. What mattered to him is that he could use it against Walz, which really required twisted logic to begin with.

A lot of these reactions from people who celebrate political assassinations and from people who really want to find people celebrating so they can be doxxed almost seem like the people don’t understand this is real life.

And I said I do not like it at all.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Ok. I do t like it but it's directed at Tim Walz who is alive. Am I missing something?

You really don't think that is making light of an assassination? Regardless of who it is "directed at"? It is using the image of someone who was about to open that door and gun down a senator, her husband, and dog with their daughter home. And that was very shortly after it happened. Come on man. I think any post making light of Kirk's death is disgusting as well, but have some consistency please.

 

[FLaw47]

Unfortunately, for a lot of these people it’s not about being against celebrating political violence or being against indecency. It’s just about partisanship and exercising power. It’s the same impulse that makes people think they should celebrate political assassinations of people who annoy them.

100% agreee

 

[FLaw47]

Oh c'mon now. Don't be a little biatch. Everyone knows what you meant. If you're an ahole, just own it. Backtracking like this is pathetic and embarrassing.

I'm sorry, I'm lost. I fully agree that it's often not illegal to fire someone for a thing they said. I also think it's often appropriate. I know that it's not really related to the First Amendment.

I also think the bulk of the people in this thread who are calling for the firings were screeching about "cancel culture" when someone they liked was the "victim" and have decided to ice skate up hill and provide them with an opportunity to reflect on why they feel the way they do.

But self reflection is somehow beta cuck now so I probably shouldn't have bothered.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Why was the Pelosi attack different (aside from Paul living)? I haven't seen anyone arguing it in this thread yet. I just strongly suspect that a lot of the people in this thread who are trying to get people fired were completely fine when similar comments were made about those attacks. Charlie Kirk, in fact, encouraged people in the area to try to bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker.

I'm mostly fine with someone so long as they're demonstrating some rhetorical consistency.

There were some differences, but not so much in the events (the guy was trying to kill Pelosi), as in the rhetoric around it. I actually think it was kind of exemplary of the bad ways these things go on the left and the right. From what I’ve seen, there’s too much acceptance of political violence on the left, whether that’s rioting, assaulting political opponents, or even assassinations like these. Could that be because of left wing rhetoric insisting that speech is violence, and that people disagreeing with the left will “literally kill people”?

But in the case of Pelosi being attacked, some people on the right immediately started conspiracy theorizing about how it had to actually be Pelosi’s gay lover, or some combination of that with a false flag. Kirk and others decided to make such hay of it that they somewhat trollishly wanted Pelosi’s attacker bailed out so he could “tell the real story” that would hurt Pelosi and the left. Those people have no problem recognizing the problem with calling speech you disagree with “violence,” but they’re also creating a fantasy world where all political violence and bad behavior from the right isn’t real, whether through conspiracy theorizing or just insisting on alternative facts. Could that be because some on the right/people who are just really into Trump have convinced themselves they’re in an existential battle for civilization where anything bad for them means a gain for the “enemy”?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

One was also an official part of the government, and the other was not. I would recommend you google Mike Lee and his reaction to the assassination of multiple people. You just asked who is arguing to the contrary, so it seemed like you wanted consistency. Was saying the same.

Lee is a strange case, because he used to be a big constitutionalist conservative. Now, I guess, he’s decided trolling is more important.

 

[FLaw47]

There were some differences, but not so much in the events (the guy was trying to kill Pelosi), as in the rhetoric around it. I actually think it was kind of exemplary of the bad ways these things go on the left and the right. From what I’ve seen, there’s too much acceptance of political violence on the left, whether that’s rioting, assaulting political opponents, or even assassinations like these. Could that be because of left wing rhetoric insisting that speech is violence, and that people disagreeing with the left will “literally kill people”?

But in the case of Pelosi being attacked, some people on the right immediately started conspiracy theorizing about how it had to actually be Pelosi’s gay lover, or some combination of that with a false flag. Kirk and others decided to make such hay of it that they somewhat trollishly wanted Pelosi’s attacker bailed out so he could “tell the real story” that would hurt Pelosi and the left. Those people have no problem recognizing the problem with calling speech you disagree with “violence,” but they’re also creating a fantasy world where all political violence and bad behavior from the right isn’t real, whether through conspiracy theorizing or just insisting on alternative facts. Could that be because some on the right/people who are just really into Trump have convinced themselves they’re in an existential battle for civilization where anything bad for them means a gain for the “enemy”?

I don't condone rioting nor assaulting political opponents, full stop (though I think both of these issues have been significantly overstated). I obviously understand it more than I do when the right uses violence because I share many of the frustrations that lead to these behaviors.

I don't think that speech is violence but I separately think that everyone who claims to be a "free speech absolutists" is 100% full of it. And I do think that there are types of speech that move into immoral and probably illegal. But I'll also say that people shouldn't (but do) simultaneously hand wave away all of the divisive rhetoric that people like Kirk make while blaming "the radical left" for their speech forcing someone to murder Kirk. You can't have it both ways.

I agree that a lot of people erroneously think they're in an existential threat for survival.

But I think all of this points out that even if we should all be allowed to say approximately whatever we want, sometimes we just shouldn't do it. I don't like it when people on my side try to dehumanize Republican voters and I don't think people like Kirk should be saying a lot of the things he says. It's clear that speech has consequences.

 

[SDTiger9]

This is it. The majority of Americans have fallen for their trap. Millions vote every year against their own best interests because they have been brain washed with ideology.

See the movie WarGames? When Matthew Broderick was smart enough to have “Joshua” play Tic-Tac-Toe against itself?

The computer lost its fvckin mind because the game is pointless. When played properly, no one will ever win. It is a simple game of opponent error, nothing else.

But what’s the secret and why it gets played?
It’s easy.
It only allows 2 players.

Gives EVERYONE who plays a sense that they can win. No one ever wins, only an opponent fails. And it never allows multiple parties to play as it would clearly invalidate the false claim to begin with.

Thats American Politics. A Tic-Tac-Toe board wiping out legitimate opposition and being the biggest midget.

 

[SDTiger9]

BTW, you know how most of you are full of ****?

You’ll try to choke each others throats on who is at fault politically using cherry-picking facts to do so. Yet, you’ll unite on Clemson Football and stand by the team and players, and almost unanimously when players weren’t paid.

Yet, when a player is dismissed, drops out, transfers…… you all will gleefully toss him aside as he “wasn’t worth a lot”, “had a poor attitude.” Meanwhile, you still have cancer cooking on the current roster that you’ll pledge loyalty to.

Zero class especially when you don’t know the person’s full situation. And that’s the point.

We never know the full story. We have the actual truth and expansive fabrications. We have skyrocketing nonsense and truth in media of all types. Yet you’ll pledge loyalty to organizations that get voted out repeatedly.

It takes gerrymandering (more fraud) to retain their places. I imagine you can all pat each other on the back for that one.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I don't condone rioting nor assaulting political opponents, full stop (though I think both of these issues have been significantly overstated). I obviously understand it more than I do when the right uses violence because I share many of the frustrations that lead to these behaviors.

I don't think that speech is violence but I separately think that everyone who claims to be a "free speech absolutists" is 100% full of it. And I do think that there are types of speech that move into immoral and probably illegal. But I'll also say that people shouldn't (but do) simultaneously hand wave away all of the divisive rhetoric that people like Kirk make while blaming "the radical left" for their speech forcing someone to murder Kirk. You can't have it both ways.

I agree that a lot of people erroneously think they're in an existential threat for survival.

But I think all of this points out that even if we should all be allowed to say approximately whatever we want, sometimes we just shouldn't do it. I don't like it when people on my side try to dehumanize Republican voters and I don't think people like Kirk should be saying a lot of the things he says. It's clear that speech has consequences.

Agreed. It’s certainly ironic that many of the people insisting on free speech for their side and arguing against the idea that speech is violence, now also blame left wing rhetoric for political violence.

As you suggested, we need a better climate of speech, which relies on free speech for fostering an open climate of debate, but which doesn’t stop there. Free speech shouldn’t mean irresponsibility, even if violence isn’t a justifiable consequence of bad speech.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Uh, Clemson is a public entity so this is a government thing. Whether a government entity can regulate such speech depends on several factors (was the employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern rather than in the performance of his or her duties?). If that answer is yes, then there is a balancing test that is applied and I won’t get into the specifics of that. It’s called the Pickering test.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the right of free speech. Yes, you can say anything you want, and yes, there may be consequences.

Unproffesional conduct and immorality, while both being completely subjective, are indeed fireable offenses. At best, the guy is ignorant and can't "read the room", at worst, he's just evil.

 

[Trading Tiger]

I'm sorry, I'm lost. I fully agree that it's often not illegal to fire someone for a thing they said. I also think it's often appropriate. I know that it's not really related to the First Amendment.

I also think the bulk of the people in this thread who are calling for the firings were screeching about "cancel culture" when someone they liked was the "victim" and have decided to ice skate up hill and provide them with an opportunity to reflect on why they feel the way they do.

But self reflection is somehow beta cuck now so I probably shouldn't have bothered.

I already explained it, but I think it was in response to a different post...you are trying to compare 2 things that are incomparable.

Paula Deen was "cancelled" for saying the N word something like 4 or 5 decades ago. This guy is celebrating a murder. You really think those are the same?

Keep working on the self reflection, you've got a long way to go.

 

[FLaw47]

I already explained it, but I think it was in response to a different post...you are trying to compare 2 things that are incomparable.

Paula Deen was "cancelled" for saying the N word something like 4 or 5 decades ago. This guy is celebrating a murder. You really think those are the same?

Keep working on the self reflection, you've got a long way to go.

Oh it's what we knew all along. You get to decide when a cancellation is appropriate and when it's not. Sorry, I'll check with you before forming an opinion next time.

If you want to play "cherry pick examples" I guess we can do that but I find it to be pretty reductive.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Oh it's what we knew all along. You get to decide when a cancellation is appropriate and when it's not. Sorry, I'll check with you before forming an opinion next time.

If you want to play "cherry pick examples" I guess we can do that but I find it to be pretty reductive.

That was your takeaway from my post? I agree with what you said previously, you are hopelessly lost.

 

[TigerPrice03]

There seem to be a lot of people who are going to lose their jobs over this. I imagine many university professors and teachers will be outbox a job before it is over. I think Elon Musk just fired someone for saying something stupid on social media.

 

[Baldinger's Finger]

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the right of free speech. Yes, you can say anything you want, and yes, there may be consequences.

Unproffesional conduct and immorality, while both being completely subjective, are indeed fireable offenses. At best, the guy is ignorant and can't "read the room", at worst, he's just evil.

Well, considering I'm an attorney and have taken three state's bar exams, each of which had constitutional law questions, I don't think I am misunderstanding the right of free speech. As I stated, public employees have a right of free speech and cannot be disciplined so long as their speech addresses a matter of public concern and their interest in speaking outweighs the employer's interest in efficient government operations. Therein lies the Pickering balancing test which I alluded to in my earlier post.

 

[FLaw47]

That was your takeaway from my post? I agree with what you said previously, you are hopelessly lost.

If no one can understand what you're prattling on about, it may be on you.

 

[DividedPi]

Reaching out to admin now. Everyone else should as well.

[email protected]

I thought Charlie himself was all about free speech and open discourse on college campuses? Isn't cancelling a professor who said something you find despicable (understandably so) the opposite of what Charlie would have wanted?

 

[vampirothx]

I thought Charlie himself was all about free speech and open discourse on college campuses? Isn't cancelling a professor who said something you find despicable (understandably so) the opposite of what Charlie would have wanted?

This has been addressed in this thread ad nauseam, nothing about reaching out and issuing concerns is against free speech. He can say whatever he wants, but the repercussions for those actions are up to society to determine. If his views do not align with mine, it is my free speech to express how I feel about them which is what I did. The content of my conversation did not include anything about removing this person as an employee of the university, only encouraged them to look at the situation with empathy for a family who lost the foundation of their lives. Kids that will grow up in a broken home. I encouraged them to speak with this individual so that he understands when he uses his voice he represents Clemson as well as himself whether that was his intention or not.

 

[DividedPi]

This has been addressed in this thread ad nauseam, nothing about reaching out and issuing concerns is against free speech. He can say whatever he wants, but the repercussions for those actions are up to society to determine. If his views do not align with mine, it is my free speech to express how I feel about them which is what I did. The content of my conversation did not include anything about removing this person as an employee of the university, only encouraged them to look at the situation with empathy for a family who lost the foundation of their lives. Kids that will grow up in a broken home. I encouraged them to speak with this individual so that he understands when he uses his voice he represents Clemson as well as himself whether that was his intention or not.

I completely agree with you, but how is that any different from what we refer to as cancel culture? Isn't that just people expressing their personal concern, hurt, outrage, etc and then an organization making a hiring or employment decision based on that?

 

[fatpiggy]

Clemson catching heat, it’s spreading. Waiting on you Pres to do your job.

 

[tigergray]

I think his actions/comments are distasteful, but there's certainly some irony in wanting him fired for mocking the death of someone who was very well known for mocking the death of other people.

The deceased person also put out numerous videos elucidating his position that the notion of empathy was weak and useless (I certainly don't agree with that idea, either).

He never mocked the death of anyone you people are so full of ****

 

[tgrharley]

Was the person fired by Greenville County a Clemson grad?

Yes

 

[BYOGrits]

That Clemson professor could easily stay in the ACC and go to Berkeley and get hired by Cal. He'd fit right in with those f'tards.

 

[tgrharley]

Uh, Clemson is a public entity so this is a government thing. Whether a government entity can regulate such speech depends on several factors (was the employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern rather than in the performance of his or her duties?). If that answer is yes, then there is a balancing test that is applied and I won’t get into the specifics of that. It’s called the Pickering test.

Tell it to Texas AM and MTSU bro

 

[Baldinger's Finger]

Tell it to Texas AM and MTSU bro

Tell them what? What the law is.

 

[NationalChamps16]

I think his actions/comments are distasteful, but there's certainly some irony in wanting him fired for mocking the death of someone who was very well known for mocking the death of other people.

The deceased person also put out numerous videos elucidating his position that the notion of empathy was weak and useless (I certainly don't agree with that idea, either).

Please provide some evidence of Kirk mocking the deaths of others.

 

[tboonpickens]

Please provide some evidence of Kirk mocking the deaths of others.

Dude was fixated on George Floyd who was murdered in broad daylight in front of the whole world, and he continuously spread lies across his various platforms that Floyd wasn't murdered.



Also made ridiculously apathetic comments about gun deaths in the wake of the Nashville school shooting.



Anyone acting like this guy was out there spreading good vibes and cheer is full of ****. He also had these racist bon mots that he shamelessly propagated.

 

[tboonpickens]

 

[RockyTopTiger14]

I did not realize we had so many lberals
On this board

 

[NationalChamps16]

Dude was fixated on George Floyd who was murdered in broad daylight in front of the whole world, and he continuously spread lies across his various platforms that Floyd wasn't murdered.



Also made ridiculously apathetic comments about gun deaths in the wake of the Nashville school shooting.



Anyone acting like this guy was out there spreading good vibes and cheer is full of ****. He also had these racist bon mots that he shamelessly propagated.

Completely understand now that your comments initially were just what I thought they were, a quiet stance in which you were attempting to legitimize Charlie Kirk's murder. I never said anything about him "speading good vibes and cheer". Just asked you to defend the comment about Kirk "mocking" other's deaths. I do think, in your reply, you have revealed your character and let you inner thoughts become transparent. Just so we all know for the record, who else is on your list of "It's ok if they get murdered"?

 

[TooterTownTiger]

Dude was fixated on George Floyd who was murdered in broad daylight in front of the whole world, and he continuously spread lies across his various platforms that Floyd wasn't murdered.



Also made ridiculously apathetic comments about gun deaths in the wake of the Nashville school shooting.



Anyone acting like this guy was out there spreading good vibes and cheer is full of ****. He also had these racist bon mots that he shamelessly propagated.

Every one knows George Floyd OD’d.

 

[Clemsontrav16]

They are getting hammered for this statement by lawmakers and all kinds of people on social media. Seems like Clements should at minimum make a statement. #DefundClemson isn’t really the hashtag you want trending