Horrible, Bad, Insensitive Joke Requires Justice to Be Meted Out

 

A tweet from student Jaden McNeil last week said, “Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free for an entire month!” This prompted a decision for Kansas State football players to boycott.

Frankly, I am surprised this joke wasn’t posted on our “Funny Political Memes” page. But in today’s world, who here would dare have the courage or stupidity to do so…

If this joke were told by a late-night comedic host, would he be canceled? Is free speech no longer one of our constitutional rights? Will Kansas State officially cancel this student? I think the odds are high that they will.  Intolerance is ironically the highest honorable badge of the so-called, self-declared tolerant.

I am simply exhausted by the totality of the insanity.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 86 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Manny (View Comment):

    Certainly the person should have the freedom to say it, but, gee, that was a pretty tasteless joke.

    Seems tame to me. I think this is way more tasteless for a guy who had pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s belly.

    George Floyd laid to rest amidst call for racial justice ...

    Or this: law enforcement saluting this a-hole:

    Family members, dignitaries honor George Floyd at funeral ...

    It looks like George Floyd died because the police acted wrongly. He didn’t deserve that. Nor does he deserve respect, reverence, or admiration. He’s not Rosa Parks; he’s not Emmett Till; he’s not MLK.

    Besides, taste is a matter of taste. Are we really now rationalizing cancel culture? One debatably tasteless joke now gets someone cancelled and there’s any hemming and hawing on our side? Some total seemingly permanent judgement on this guy as a person just because of a joke? Throw in the raising up of this Floyd guy and it’s enough to drive me to despair. Have I been a fool this whole time thinking that anyone actually cared about reason, humanity, or civility? Have I been a fool thinking that Republicans or Conservative Inc had any interest in championing the values I thought we shared? It appears I have been.

    • #61
  2. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Certainly the person should have the freedom to say it, but, gee, that was a pretty tasteless joke.

    I agree. What I find unworthy is the idea that tastelessness should become broadly actionable. There’s an institutional cowardice to that that I find repugnant.

    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?” Always. How many times have I heard that whole “… but I’ll defend your right to say it”? Too many, and it turns out that isn’t true. This joke may be tasteless, but really it shouldn’t matter even if this guy were a racist. He has that right as long as he acts within the law, doesn’t incite, doesn’t commit crimes! Sure I would despise him the same as I despise the Democrat racialists, but that doesn’t justify this kind of totalitarian thought policing.

    • #62
  3. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    a, so I’d like to see the opinions of impartial medical examiners on the issue. Not only have I not seen such an opinion, from even one medical examiner, but such opinions are being actively suppressed in the media (including Scientific American).

    Not necessary to the point. The cop came into the encounter with his gun pointed at the man’s head. The accusation was passing a bad $20 bill, and was made by an untrained clerk at a convenience store. That is outrageous. You take the plaintiff as he is. The lightest touch might not hurt most people, but if the man is delicate as glass and your light touch harms him, you’re still liable. The police used vicious methods to subdue a man that was only haphazardly suspected of a petty, non-violent crime. I don’t care if he was a nice guy or not, the cops murdered him inexcusably.

    Skyler, I don’t know where you get this information.  The cop did not come into the encounter with a gun pointed at Mr. Floyd’s head.  You can see this for yourself, on video, here and here.  I does look like both officers are holding flashlights, in their left hands, when they first approached the car.

    I disagree with the rest of your conclusions, as well, but I don’t see much point in arguing about it.  Your opening sentence about the gun is not correct.

    I wonder if this will change your view of the situation.  You found it “outrageous” that the “cop came into the encounter with his gun pointed at the man’s head.”  That didn’t happen.  You can see this for yourself.

    I don’t think that it’s shown on the video, but I do think that it’s been reported that the officer talking to Mr. Floyd while he (Floyd) was still in his car did draw his gun briefly, reportedly when Mr. Floyd did not put his hands on the wheel as instructed.  The officer put the gun away, and the two officers cuffed Mr. Floyd with minimal force, as shown on the videos above.

    • #63
  4. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?”

    Not for me.  I choose to disassociate myself from low stuff like that.  

    • #64
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    a, so I’d like to see the opinions of impartial medical examiners on the issue. Not only have I not seen such an opinion, from even one medical examiner, but such opinions are being actively suppressed in the media (including Scientific American).

    Not necessary to the point. The cop came into the encounter with his gun pointed at the man’s head. The accusation was passing a bad $20 bill, and was made by an untrained clerk at a convenience store. That is outrageous. You take the plaintiff as he is. The lightest touch might not hurt most people, but if the man is delicate as glass and your light touch harms him, you’re still liable. The police used vicious methods to subdue a man that was only haphazardly suspected of a petty, non-violent crime. I don’t care if he was a nice guy or not, the cops murdered him inexcusably.

    I read somewhere that he had a warrant out on him.  Is this debunked?

    • #65
  6. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I wonder if this will change your view of the situation. You found it “outrageous” that the “cop came into the encounter with his gun pointed at the man’s head.” That didn’t happen. You can see this for yourself.

    That’s what I read at one time.  Perhaps it’s true, perhaps it’s not, you can never tell anymore.

    • #66
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Manny (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?”

    Not for me. I choose to disassociate myself from low stuff like that.

    I get it, and I’m not suggesting that you should embrace the joke out of some sense of loyalty. However, we’re more and more at war (figuratevely… so far) and nuance gets lost.

    Should he be cancelled for this or not? If not, then don’t even get close to rationalizing the cancellation. Which is worse? getting close to rationalizing the cancel culture or getting close to having people think you condone low tasteless humor?

    • #67
  8. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?”

    Not for me. I choose to disassociate myself from low stuff like that.

    I get it, and I’m not suggesting that you should embrace the joke out of some sense of loyalty. However, we’re more and more at war (figuratevely… so far) and nuance gets lost.

    Should he be cancelled for this or not? If not, then don’t even get close to rationalizing the cancellation. Which is worse? getting close to rationalizing the cancel culture or getting close to having people think you condone low tasteless humor?

    More to the point, I think, is should we even bother to care about this? Should anyone?

    There are 300+ million people in America. Every imaginable offense will occur somewhere, against white and black and gay and straight and man and woman and child. If we live in click-bait mode, ready to react to everything, we’ll skitter across the surface of life spitting steam like a piece of sodium in a tub of water.

    Some dumb kid made a dumb joke. Every single person who gets his nose bent about it is telegraphing his personal trivialness.

    • #68
  9. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?”

    Not for me. I choose to disassociate myself from low stuff like that.

    I get it, and I’m not suggesting that you should embrace the joke out of some sense of loyalty. However, we’re more and more at war (figuratevely… so far) and nuance gets lost.

    Should he be cancelled for this or not? If not, then don’t even get close to rationalizing the cancellation. Which is worse? getting close to rationalizing the cancel culture or getting close to having people think you condone low tasteless humor?

    I understand where you and Henry are coming from.  On a different day I might be just as pugnacious and have your approach.  And I definitely agree with Henry it should not be elevated.  But if it is elevated there are two reasons I see why it should be repudiated while allowed the student’s right to say it.  (1) It is incredibly insensitive to a person’s death, so there’s a moral element to it.  Perhaps I’m being very “churchy” but it’s wrong.  (2) More importantly perhaps if societal pressure does not police it, then because it is ethically suspect institutions feel the need to police it.  One might make the argument that because societal pressure has failed to restrain bad behavior, it has opened the door for institutions to do so.  There was a time when people didn’t coddle such statements.  Perhaps the failure now in the last fifty years to do so is part of the reason we are where we are.

    • #69
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Manny (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Indeed. There should be no “he has a right….but”. It should be more like “yes it was tasteless….so?”

    Not for me. I choose to disassociate myself from low stuff like that.

    I get it, and I’m not suggesting that you should embrace the joke out of some sense of loyalty. However, we’re more and more at war (figuratevely… so far) and nuance gets lost.

    Should he be cancelled for this or not? If not, then don’t even get close to rationalizing the cancellation. Which is worse? getting close to rationalizing the cancel culture or getting close to having people think you condone low tasteless humor?

    I understand where you and Henry are coming from. On a different day I might be just as pugnacious and have your approach. And I definitely agree with Henry it should not be elevated. But if it is elevated there are two reasons I see why it should be repudiated while allowed the student’s right to say it. (1) It is incredibly insensitive to a person’s death, so there’s a moral element to it. Perhaps I’m being very “churchy” but it’s wrong. (2) More importantly perhaps if societal pressure does not police it, then because it is ethically suspect institutions feel the need to police it. One might make the argument that because societal pressure has failed to restrain bad behavior, it has opened the door for institutions to do so. There was a time when people didn’t coddle such statements. Perhaps the failure now in the last fifty years to do so is part of the reason we are where we are.

    I think it was a tasteless joke. However, if push comes to shove, I’ll defend the right of someone to make a tasteless joke about a dead man, even a dead man whom many have embraced (wrongly, I believe), as a symbol of something deep and meaningful. Because the truth is that I’m much more concerned about the suppression of speech in America, particularly in our universities, than I am about systemic racism or the occasional instance of police misconduct.

    • #70
  11. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Henry, we’re not saying anything different.  Yes, I understand that free speech is being attacked, and we do have to fight against it.  I put the qualifying “he has a right….but” in there to make sure that the immorality of the statement is identified.  Like I just said to Ed, in a pugnacious moment I might say it your way too.  In a “churchy” moment I said it I think more responsibly.  But I’m not criticizing either of you.  You guys jumped on me for using the “but” phrasing.

    • #71
  12. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Manny (View Comment):

    Henry, we’re not saying anything different. Yes, I understand that free speech is being attacked, and we do have to fight against it. I put the qualifying “he has a right….but” in there to make sure that the immorality of the statement is identified. Like I just said to Ed, in a pugnacious moment I might say it your way too. In a “churchy” moment I said it I think more responsibly. But I’m not criticizing either of you. You guys jumped on me for using the “but” phrasing.

    No, I understand — and I didn’t intend to jump on you, and hope I didn’t. And I’m sorry if I did.

    A long time ago I decided to stop qualifying free speech defenses. I think it was a case of one of those deliberately antagonistic, flash-in-the-pan college speakers, Milodopolis or whatever he was called, that prompted me to do it. I can attribute vulgarity to shallowness and poor character, and so overlook it fairly easily. The efforts to silence free speech are much more troubling to me, because I think they’re more sinister and harmful. So I decided not to qualify my defenses of free speech with “while I think he’s loathsome, I also think he has a right etc. etc. etc.”

    My response to this particular instance of offensive speech has more to do with process than anything else. It’s one thing for a school to shout down a speaker, say Charles Murray, because they don’t like his message. That’s terrible, but I understand why they do it: they don’t want his thoughts to become widely known, because it communicates something contrary to what they believe.

    This case is different. What I find contemptible in this instance is the left’s obsession with crushing someone who is guilty, not of communicating important ideas that conflict with a worldview the left is trying to push, but rather merely of being tasteless. That’s so petty and trivial as to diminish the people who obsess about it: they stop being sinister, and merely become shallow and ridiculous.

    I thought the joke was fairly funny, in a dark way. I pity the prissy pansies of Kansas State football, all of whom (I suspect) have been guilty of equally vulgar comments. They’re pathetic.

    Anyway, my intention was to vent my disgust with these very small people, not to upbraid you or anyone else here for anything said. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

    • #72
  13. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    That’s fine Henry. No offense taken. 

    • #73
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    When Free Speech is under attack, the counter is supposed to me more speech. 

    We are forced to celebrate all speech to defend against the censors I am afraid. 

    • #74
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    When Free Speech is under attack, the counter is supposed to me more speech.

    We are forced to celebrate all speech to defend against the censors I am afraid.

    Celebrating isn’t necessary. Tolerating is.

    • #75
  16. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    When Free Speech is under attack, the counter is supposed to me more speech.

    We are forced to celebrate all speech to defend against the censors I am afraid.

    Bryan, I think you’re right.

    Years ago I started drawing and posting the occasional picture of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet and warlord. I did it because we’re told, so emphatically, that we may not. It isn’t that I want to be offensive to Muslims, but rather that I want to assert a right I possess in defiance of those who would deprive me of it — even when I’m not particularly interested in exercising that particular right.

    In contrast, I usually spell G-d online with the hyphen in it, out of respect for my Jewish friends who are uncomfortable seeing the word spelled out. I’m not Jewish, nor am I a religious person, but Jews don’t try to take away my rights to free speech, and so I’m happy to try to be a tiny bit courteous.

    An unfortunate consequence of all the amateur censors out there, all the cancel culture rotters, all the big-tech social media Stasi busily silencing right-wing expression, is that many nice, normal, otherwise pleasant people are going to want to be more, not less, offensive in order to assert a right the goons insist on trying to take away.

     

    • #76
  17. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    When Free Speech is under attack, the counter is supposed to me more speech.

    We are forced to celebrate all speech to defend against the censors I am afraid.

    Bryan, I think you’re right.

    Years ago I started drawing and posting the occasional picture of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet and warlord. I did it because we’re told, so emphatically, that we may not. It isn’t that I want to be offensive to Muslims, but rather that I want to assert a right I possess in defiance of those who would deprive me of it — even when I’m not particularly interested in exercising that particular right.

    In contrast, I usually spell G-d online with the hyphen in it, out of respect for my Jewish friends who are uncomfortable seeing the word spelled out. I’m not Jewish, nor am I a religious person, but Jews don’t try to take away my rights to free speech, and so I’m happy to try to be a tiny bit courteous.

    An unfortunate consequence of all the amateur censors out there, all the cancel culture rotters, all the big-tech social media Stasi busily silencing right-wing expression, is that many nice, normal, otherwise pleasant people are going to want to be more, not less, offensive in order to assert a right the goons insist on trying to take away.

     

    Back then I was in Manny’s camp. I said that people like you have the right to draw Muhammad, but you shouldn’t because it is seriously disrespectful in a way that “yo momma” jokes aren’t. That was before cancel culture really ramped up. That was before it became clear that this was a one way weapon and that truth or even support was any defense. So now, tasteless or not, I’ll oppose anyone who wants to cancel because of a joke or even because of an unpopular opinion or ebevn a truly offensive opinion. No aid or comfort to those cancel people in this environment; the world I want where I can tut tut without encouraging the crazy totalitarians does not exist anymore.

    • #77
  18. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    The school just sent out this tweet, linking to a message from the president.

    Michelle Malkin is on the case.

    From item 7 of the message, “Develop a policy on social media usage for students that balances our institutional values and free speech. Currently one exists for faculty and staff.”, I don’t think Jaden will be expelled. Looks as though they are saying that we can’t get him on any current rules so we are going to make some new rules to get him next time.

    • #78
  19. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I did it because we’re told, so emphatically, that we may not.

    Sometimes you have to sail into the Gulf of Sidra just to remind everyone that you can. 

    • #79
  20. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    The school just sent out this tweet, linking to a message from the president.

    Michelle Malkin is on the case.

    From item 7 of the message, “Develop a policy on social media usage for students that balances our institutional values and free speech. Currently one exists for faculty and staff.”, I don’t think Jaden will be expelled. Looks as though they are saying that we can’t get him on any current rules so we are going to make some new rules to get him next time.

    It looks a lot more like a sect. 1983 civil rights conspiracy.  Government schools have no business controlling student speech.  Isn’t that what the lefties proved back in the late sixties and early seventies?

    • #80
  21. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    The school just sent out this tweet, linking to a message from the president.

    [Edits]

    From item 7 of the message, “Develop a policy on social media usage for students that balances our institutional values and free speech. Currently one exists for faculty and staff.”, I don’t think Jaden will be expelled. Looks as though they are saying that we can’t get him on any current rules so we are going to make some new rules to get him next time.

    My bold face on something that is unintentionally revealing.  In short, KSU views free speech rights as something to be “balanced,” and no doubt curtailed by “institutional values.”  If I was an alumnus, I’d love to hammer the Prez for this, and I hope some informed conservative in the state legislature is watching.  Curtailment of speech by state actors is not something to be “balanced” by university administrators.

    • #81
  22. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    The school just sent out this tweet, linking to a message from the president.

    Michelle Malkin is on the case.

    From item 7 of the message, “Develop a policy on social media usage for students that balances our institutional values and free speech. Currently one exists for faculty and staff.”, I don’t think Jaden will be expelled. Looks as though they are saying that we can’t get him on any current rules so we are going to make some new rules to get him next time.

    It looks a lot more like a sect. 1983 civil rights conspiracy. Government schools have no business controlling student speech. Isn’t that what the lefties proved back in the late sixties and early seventies?

    Amen. Why in the world do we want schools to become courts (adjudicating rape or assault charges) or struggle sessions (pardoning or condemning thoughts and words)? Just teach! If a crime is committed – and that includes actual incitement or threats – then let the police handle it. If someone expresses thoughts or words you don’t like (outside of the classroom) then either live with it or counter with your own thoughts and words outside of the classroom.

    No school should want to take on these extended roles.

    • #82
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I did it because we’re told, so emphatically, that we may not.

    Sometimes you have to sail into the Gulf of Sidra just to remind everyone that you can.

    • #83
  24. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If I was an alumnus, I’d love to hammer the Prez for this

    It’s a state school. You don’t need to be an alumnus (as though they’d be listened to).  You’re a citizen with a vested interest.

    • #84
  25. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If I was an alumnus, I’d love to hammer the Prez for this

    It’s a state school. You don’t need to be an alumnus (as though they’d be listened to). You’re a citizen with a vested interest.

    That’s true, but an alumnus usually carries more weight.  In this case a Kansas taxpayer would work too, but the legislature should also be on it.

    • #85
  26. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If I was an alumnus, I’d love to hammer the Prez for this

    It’s a state school. You don’t need to be an alumnus (as though they’d be listened to). You’re a citizen with a vested interest.

    I’d like to think state schools can be nailed on free speech violations with ease. 

    • #86
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.