Chicago principal claims teacher who made sick Charlie Kirk gesture is the victim

[ThatRobGuy]

Chicago principal claims teacher who made sick Charlie Kirk gesture is the victim — but makes no mention of her behavior

Lucy Martinez, a teacher at Nathan Hale Elementary School, was recorded putting a finger to her neck and pretending to pull the trigger during a No Kings protest in the city over the weekend.

nypost.com

The principal of a Chicago public school painted a teacher who went viral for apparently mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination as the victim in a letter to parents — and made no mention of the accusations against her.

Lucy Martinez, a teacher at Nathan Hale Elementary School, was recorded putting a finger to her neck and pretending to pull the trigger during a No Kings protest in the city over the weekend.


Is it "cancel culture" or "accountability culture"?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If she’s receiving death threats simply for making a stupid joke then yeah, she is a victim. A very dumb victim but nonetheless, her gesture doesn’t merit violent threats.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If she’s receiving death threats simply for making a stupid joke then yeah, she is a victim. A very dumb victim but nonetheless, her gesture doesn’t merit violent threats.

Those threats would be the result of doxxing then I take it?

 

[bèlla]

It isn’t a crime to speak negatively about Charlie Kirk or fail to empathize with his death. Using him as a scapegoat for punishment is no different than what we see in muslim countries. As the practice continues christians will be blamed. Using our religion against us is pretty shrewd. But the bible said they were.

~bella

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Those threats would be the result of doxxing then I take it?

It sounds like people are calling the school and making threats. That crosses the line to where children who had nothing to do with her actions are now at risk. I can totally understand why the principal doesn’t want to entertain these people’s hollow concerns at all now.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It isn’t a crime to speak negatively about Charlie Kirk or fail to empathize with his death. Using him as a scapegoat for punishment is no different than what we see in muslim countries. As the practice continues christians will be blamed. Using our religion against us is pretty shrewd. But the bible said they were.

~bella

Right, but we lived through the era where if someone told an "offensive joke" nine years ago, it justified getting them fired in the present day and it was considered "accountability culture" (as a rebuttal to accusations of "cancel culture")

Either doing something that hurts someone else's feeling is grounds for serious consequences, or it isn't.

Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon both had to give graveling apologies for impersonating Carl Malone and Chris Rock (out of fear of losing their job). This lady is obnoxiously doing some sort of "shot in the neck" dance and mugging for the camera, and people finding out who she is, and writing angry letters demanding the district fire her makes her the "victim"?


If in the wake of George Floyd, a couple of conservative people decided to do a sick joke of an obnoxious "knee on the neck" display... would anyone on the far-left be shedding a tear over them getting doxxed and sent nastygrams via email? The answer is a resounding "no".

 

[Chesterton]

Is it "cancel culture" or "accountability culture"?

Accountability. I have socio-political beliefs similar to Kirk's. I would not feel safe working around co-workers who think it's okay to murder me in front of my family.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Accountability. I have socio-political beliefs similar to Kirk's. I would not feel safe working around co-workers who think it's okay to murder me in front of my family.

That was part of my point...

I've seen a lot of social media backlash to this woman facing consequences up to and including doxxing and people demanding she be fired.

But I don't feel much sympathy knowing she would've been the exact same type of person who would've gloated and celebrated at the doxxing and firing of her political opponents 3-5 years ago.

In a purist sense, I don't ever think anyone's "outside of work" activities should impact their employment if they're good at their job...but the battle lines were drawn and other people made certain rules on that.

And it's inconsistent if they only want those rules selectively applied to people from the other political team.

It's concept known as "hoisted by their own petard"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If she’s receiving death threats simply for making a stupid joke then yeah, she is a victim. A very dumb victim but nonetheless, her gesture doesn’t merit violent threats.

So she thinks it's funny/cool for "others" to get killed for expressing a political viewpoint, but not her personally?

She's exhibited a double standard there, yes?

 

[Chesterton]

And it's inconsistent if they only want those rules selectively applied to people from the other political team.

Yeah the inconsistency really bothers me. Plus the murder stuff. Maybe every job application and interview in America should include the question "Do you believe in murdering nice, harmless people because you disagree with them?" If the answer is "yes", then "You're inherently dangerous. We don't want you here."

 

[Ophiolite]

Right, but we lived through the era where if someone told an "offensive joke" nine years ago, it justified getting them fired in the present day and it was considered "accountability culture" (as a rebuttal to accusations of "cancel culture")

Either doing something that hurts someone else's feeling is grounds for serious consequences, or it isn't.

Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon both had to give graveling apologies for impersonating Carl Malone and Chris Rock (out of fear of losing their job). This lady is obnoxiously doing some sort of "shot in the neck" dance and mugging for the camera, and people finding out who she is, and writing angry letters demanding the district fire her makes her the "victim"?


If in the wake of George Floyd, a couple of conservative people decided to do a sick joke of an obnoxious "knee on the neck" display... would anyone on the far-left be shedding a tear over them getting doxxed and sent nastygrams via email? The answer is a resounding "no".

Help me out here, didn't someone, somewhere, somewhen, say something about turning the other cheek? If you ignore stupidty it often dries up and blows away in wind.

 

[bèlla]

If in the wake of George Floyd, a couple of conservative people decided to do a sick joke of an obnoxious "knee on the neck" display... would anyone on the far-left be shedding a tear over them getting doxxed and sent nastygrams via email? The answer is a resounding "no".

What does the right or left have to do with my comment? I addressed the legality of her behavior not politics. The continued insertion of the latter is part of the problem. Viewing life through that lens reduces our perspective to win or lose and tit for tat arguments that don’t resolve a thing.

I have too much intelligence to think that way and I’m pretty certain you do as well.

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

She's exhibited a double standard there, yes?

The hypocrisy!

 

[bèlla]

Yeah the inconsistency really bothers me. Plus the murder stuff. Maybe every job application and interview in America should include the question "Do you believe in murdering nice, harmless people because you disagree with them?" If the answer is "yes", then "You're inherently dangerous. We don't want you here."

Job applications are handled through software and Ai nowadays. If you’re getting an interview they already know the answer. Assuming the one you’re applying for really exists. Half of them don’t.

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

Job applications are handled through software and Ai nowadays. If you’re getting an interview they already know the answer. Assuming the one you’re applying for really exists. Half of them don’t.

~bella

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah the inconsistency really bothers me. Plus the murder stuff. Maybe every job application and interview in America should include the question "Do you believe in murdering nice, harmless people because you disagree with them?" If the answer is "yes", then "You're inherently dangerous. We don't want you here."

There does seem to be a concerning trend (based on polling) drawn down generational lines.

The younger generations (Gen Z and Gen Alpha) seem to think political violence is justified if it serves political ends) compared to the Millienial, Gen X, and boomer counterparts.

Being a Gen X guy myself, I remember when political disagreements were settled with a verbal argument, maybe a slight shoving match in a parking lot on rare occasions, followed by a "bro-grab" hug and "let's go back inside, grab another beer, and go on about our business" lol...and that was the end of it.

 

[Chesterton]

There does seem to be a concerning trend (based on polling) drawn down generational lines.

The younger generations (Gen Z and Gen Alpha) seem to think political violence is justified if it serves political ends) compared to the Millienial, Gen X, and boomer counterparts.

Being a Gen X guy myself, I remember when political disagreements were settled with a verbal argument, maybe a slight shoving match in a parking lot on rare occasions, followed by a "bro-grab" hug and "let's go back inside, grab another beer, and go on about our business" lol...and that was the end of it.

I've heard of what you're talking about. I forget which age group it was, but awhile back I came across a poll where about 60% of younger folks had positive views about political violence. It's disturbing.

 

[bèlla]

What does that have to do with what I said?

It’s antiquated.

~bella

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What does the right or left have to do with my comment? I addressed the legality of her behavior not politics. The continued insertion of the latter is part of the problem. Viewing life through that lens reduces our perspective to win or lose and tit for tat arguments that don’t resolve a thing.

I have too much intelligence to think that way and I’m pretty certain you do as well.

~bella

It has everything to do with it, because the "left" position was that anything you said or did (past or present) justified whatever consequences stemmed from it. (even if those weren't your same viewpoints anymore).

Jimmy Fallon was basically forced to give a graveling apology for a Chris Rock impression that was both funny and accurate (despite Chris saying that they were buddies, and there was no racial malintent) in order to keep his job.

 

[Chesterton]

It’s antiquated.

~bella

What is?