5 ms·

A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incide

A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-email-criticizing-george-floyd/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-emai...

smt88 6y ago
Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.
- legostormtroopr 6y ago
  > It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed. No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back. However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00nMHtG8DjlxgC9apPjPLBHYmpIkA:1593066663036&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Zc2XqCm-cCeq_M%252C0loWz6H057CD0M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRPwZ_-x7-s6YTPcjlhnnGhGltT3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjawrbkq5zqAhXCyzgGHXlzB3sQ9QEwAHoECAkQHA&biw=1217&bih=579#imgrc=Zc2XqCm-cCeq_M https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=fi... [2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal...
  - romwell 6y ago
    >Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? Talk about wild hyperboles! “In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.” The Chaplain has said enough things that association with him became a liability for an institution like MIT, that is all.
    - miracle2k 6y ago
      The new orthodoxy requires this quote to be something awful, and upon reading it, that was my immediate thought as well. "He really said that?". But it really isn't. In fact, it continues to be an opinion of a large section of the society. He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit! Disagree as much as you want, this is an opinion beyond the pale now? And the fact that the culture causes MIT to believe this to be a liability is exactly the point.
      - romwell 6y ago
        >He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit Let's not be facetious here, shall we? He said that we don't know that racism is a major problem in police forces. In fact, we do know that; the structural racism is what many people are protesting against. Structural racism manifests itself in the rules and protocols, in traditions and patterns in actions. To say that it is a major problem does not imply that the majority of individual policemen are racists. What it means is that the black people are disproportionately affected by the negative effects of policing, including brutality. To say that "we don't know that" is unacceptable ignorance for a public figurehead of a reputable institution. Because we do know that.
    - kmlx 6y ago
      everything you quoted is... objectively true
      - 6y ago
  - thr999978797 6y ago
    It's maybe important to note that the phrase 'He was no angel' is a common (extremely dark and sarcastic) joke in left-leaning circles around these kind of tragic murders because there is always, without fail, some right-wing effort to paint the victim as some sort of low-life who had it coming one way or the other. Let's be clear: no one, regardless of how much they've fucked up in their lives, deserves to be murdered in cold blood by the police while they pose no threat to anyone. To restate: a non-violent suspect's past offenses are not germane when the discussion is about the police summarily executing that non-violent suspect in the street. Any attempt to confuse this point with ideas about how the victim wasn't perfect, about how they could have done better in the confrontation or not committed a crime in the first place, is an attempt to deflect blame onto the victim. These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.
    - precisioncoder 6y ago
      "deserve no quarter in civilized discourse." This is a dangerous opinion. I would argue that the entire point of civilized discourse is to provide quarter for even opinions you radically disagree with, after all people hold these opinions and isn't discussing them in a civilized manner rather than dismissing and villainizing the people who hold them the only way to progress? Otherwise you have two sides that aren't discussing anything with each other and resort to violence, legal challenges, and pressure on employers rather than attempting to connect with each other and share another view.
      - worik 6y ago
        https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      > These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons. You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes. Hands up don't shoot, sir.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lr4444lr 6y ago
  The utterer was a Chaplain. This is a main aspect of what they are hired for: to remind us of the moral judgments of the religious tradition they were trained in. They're not just psychotherapists who wear funny clothing, and they aren't PERSONALLY setting those rules about the virtuous life. Maybe you don't want chaplains, which is an argument, but that's separate.
  - smt88 6y ago
    So someone gets shot and the chaplain doesn't remind us of the sins of judgment or wrath. He reminds us that the man shot in the back was a sinner?? Even assuming agreement with his religion, he's not even a good chaplain. His own religious texts say he shouldn't judge, and here he is judging a dead man he never met.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  a full(er) quote: "George Floyd was killed by a police officer, and shouldn’t have been. He had not lived a virtuous life. He was convicted of several crimes, including armed robbery, which he seems to have committed to feed his drug habit. And he was high on drugs at the time of his arrest. But we do not kill such people. He committed sins, but we root for sinners to change their lives and convert to the Gospel." -- link at https://newbostonpost.com/2020/06/17/m-i-t-catholic-chaplain-forced-out-over-email-message-about-george-floyd/ https://newbostonpost.com/2020/06/17/m-i-t-catholic-chaplain... But most media outlets just quote "didn't live a virtuous life" in their own paraphrasing, as well as "I don't think we know that" - that strengthen those implications by removing any context that would otherwise soften them. It's very easy to assume was justifying the killing, given that no contrary quotes are given. That's not to say that what he did say is ok/wise/sensitive, but much of the press are clearly sensationalising this.
precisioncoder 6y ago
The news article you link to is interesting because it contains one inflamatory remark while omitting any context or full text of the email. While I probably strongly disagree with him as well as well as what he wrote in his email the tactics used: Taking the most distasteful sentence (or part of a sentence) they can find and concealing anything else, has been used time and time again in many contexts in order to generate outrage without thought or understanding. This is what I find disgusting about modern news, it's more an outrage generator using incomplete out of context quotes than increasing information about the world.
kanzenryu2 6y ago
If only asking if somebody had no sense of decency would achieve anything in our current world.

smt88 6y ago

Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

legostormtroopr 6y ago
> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed. No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back. However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00nMHtG8DjlxgC9apPjPLBHYmpIkA:1593066663036&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Zc2XqCm-cCeq_M%252C0loWz6H057CD0M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRPwZ_-x7-s6YTPcjlhnnGhGltT3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjawrbkq5zqAhXCyzgGHXlzB3sQ9QEwAHoECAkQHA&biw=1217&bih=579#imgrc=Zc2XqCm-cCeq_M https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=fi... [2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal...
- romwell 6y ago
  >Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? Talk about wild hyperboles! “In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.” The Chaplain has said enough things that association with him became a liability for an institution like MIT, that is all.
  - miracle2k 6y ago
    The new orthodoxy requires this quote to be something awful, and upon reading it, that was my immediate thought as well. "He really said that?". But it really isn't. In fact, it continues to be an opinion of a large section of the society. He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit! Disagree as much as you want, this is an opinion beyond the pale now? And the fact that the culture causes MIT to believe this to be a liability is exactly the point.
    - romwell 6y ago
      >He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit Let's not be facetious here, shall we? He said that we don't know that racism is a major problem in police forces. In fact, we do know that; the structural racism is what many people are protesting against. Structural racism manifests itself in the rules and protocols, in traditions and patterns in actions. To say that it is a major problem does not imply that the majority of individual policemen are racists. What it means is that the black people are disproportionately affected by the negative effects of policing, including brutality. To say that "we don't know that" is unacceptable ignorance for a public figurehead of a reputable institution. Because we do know that.
  - kmlx 6y ago
    everything you quoted is... objectively true
    - 6y ago
- thr999978797 6y ago
  It's maybe important to note that the phrase 'He was no angel' is a common (extremely dark and sarcastic) joke in left-leaning circles around these kind of tragic murders because there is always, without fail, some right-wing effort to paint the victim as some sort of low-life who had it coming one way or the other. Let's be clear: no one, regardless of how much they've fucked up in their lives, deserves to be murdered in cold blood by the police while they pose no threat to anyone. To restate: a non-violent suspect's past offenses are not germane when the discussion is about the police summarily executing that non-violent suspect in the street. Any attempt to confuse this point with ideas about how the victim wasn't perfect, about how they could have done better in the confrontation or not committed a crime in the first place, is an attempt to deflect blame onto the victim. These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.
  - precisioncoder 6y ago
    "deserve no quarter in civilized discourse." This is a dangerous opinion. I would argue that the entire point of civilized discourse is to provide quarter for even opinions you radically disagree with, after all people hold these opinions and isn't discussing them in a civilized manner rather than dismissing and villainizing the people who hold them the only way to progress? Otherwise you have two sides that aren't discussing anything with each other and resort to violence, legal challenges, and pressure on employers rather than attempting to connect with each other and share another view.
    - worik 6y ago
      https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    > These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons. You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes. Hands up don't shoot, sir.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lr4444lr 6y ago
The utterer was a Chaplain. This is a main aspect of what they are hired for: to remind us of the moral judgments of the religious tradition they were trained in. They're not just psychotherapists who wear funny clothing, and they aren't PERSONALLY setting those rules about the virtuous life. Maybe you don't want chaplains, which is an argument, but that's separate.
- smt88 6y ago
  So someone gets shot and the chaplain doesn't remind us of the sins of judgment or wrath. He reminds us that the man shot in the back was a sinner?? Even assuming agreement with his religion, he's not even a good chaplain. His own religious texts say he shouldn't judge, and here he is judging a dead man he never met.
Chris2048 6y ago
a full(er) quote: "George Floyd was killed by a police officer, and shouldn’t have been. He had not lived a virtuous life. He was convicted of several crimes, including armed robbery, which he seems to have committed to feed his drug habit. And he was high on drugs at the time of his arrest. But we do not kill such people. He committed sins, but we root for sinners to change their lives and convert to the Gospel." -- link at https://newbostonpost.com/2020/06/17/m-i-t-catholic-chaplain-forced-out-over-email-message-about-george-floyd/ https://newbostonpost.com/2020/06/17/m-i-t-catholic-chaplain... But most media outlets just quote "didn't live a virtuous life" in their own paraphrasing, as well as "I don't think we know that" - that strengthen those implications by removing any context that would otherwise soften them. It's very easy to assume was justifying the killing, given that no contrary quotes are given. That's not to say that what he did say is ok/wise/sensitive, but much of the press are clearly sensationalising this.

precisioncoder 6y ago

The news article you link to is interesting because it contains one inflamatory remark while omitting any context or full text of the email. While I probably strongly disagree with him as well as well as what he wrote in his email the tactics used: Taking the most distasteful sentence (or part of a sentence) they can find and concealing anything else, has been used time and time again in many contexts in order to generate outrage without thought or understanding. This is what I find disgusting about modern news, it's more an outrage generator using incomplete out of context quotes than increasing information about the world.

kanzenryu2 6y ago

If only asking if somebody had no sense of decency would achieve anything in our current world.