No, Jennings Did Not Claim Killing Over Name-Calling is Acceptable
"Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings is a trainwreck for the Obama Adminstration, having hidden sexual abuse of a minor while a teacher, and then hero-worshipping a known member of NAMLA, a perverse group that advocates sex between perverted old men and underage boys. For these incidents alone any Presidential Administration with any sense of decency would ask Jennings to resign, so it is perhaps unsurprising that he still works for the Obama Administration.
But as morally compromised Jennings is, the latest complaint being aired against him is a false allegation that can only come about from a misreading of the point Jennings was attempting to make. Jennings was not attempting to say that killing someone over a sexual smear is acceptable. He was condemning it. Read the paragraph in full:Jennings was clearly disgusted with the events he was writing about. He's claiming that a society that promotes murder as an acceptable response to name-calling is abhorrent. And in this one instance, he's right.
We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being "a man" is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man—don't be a faggot.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:40 AM
Comments
1
But like most leftards he is only opposed to killing someone who calls you a faggot. What he believes is that he supports killing people who call faggots faggots. Just as libtards oppose racial discrimination only when favored people are discriminated, but they support racial discrimination against whites.
Posted by: Federale at October 12, 2009 11:49 AM (I6UoW)
2
No he doesn't support killing anyone. All the shooters he was discussing were gay.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 12, 2009 11:54 AM (gAi9Z)
3
You are right that he is not advocating this. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he was excusing the behavior to some degree because it's the fault of society.
And this is where people are missing the more damning point. Jennings is clearly saying that it's the fault of society for teaching values based on traditional gender roles. Or to put it another way, that the traditional idea of what it means to be a man is a danger to our children.
I don't think this is a belief shared by many people. And it's outrageous of him to suggest that a few isolated cases of violence are evidence for this.
And this is where people are missing the more damning point. Jennings is clearly saying that it's the fault of society for teaching values based on traditional gender roles. Or to put it another way, that the traditional idea of what it means to be a man is a danger to our children.
I don't think this is a belief shared by many people. And it's outrageous of him to suggest that a few isolated cases of violence are evidence for this.
Posted by: Morgen at October 12, 2009 12:04 PM (sxFuJ)
4
I've read about this in a few places as well. I don't understand how anyone could read that he was AGREEING with the mindset when he was clearly what he was arguing against.
Morgen does make a pretty valid point, however.
Morgen does make a pretty valid point, however.
Posted by: Tony B at October 12, 2009 12:37 PM (OMINP)
5
This isn't about Jennings endorsing murder. Frankly, some of the blogs who picked it up from us have jumped on the headline without reading the post. Thanks to Confederate Yankee for trying to reel this in before it gets out of hand.
If you visit our site, you'll see that what Morgen is saying above was precisely our point all along. This is about Jennings drawing a line between being "a man" and school shootings. It matters because if that's what he believes, then "safe schools" will necessarily be schools where "manhood" is suspect.
I'm not sure most Americans would be comfortable with that, period, much less with putting Kevin Jennings in a position to decide what the proper amount of manhood is. That, it seems to me, is worth talking about.
If you visit our site, you'll see that what Morgen is saying above was precisely our point all along. This is about Jennings drawing a line between being "a man" and school shootings. It matters because if that's what he believes, then "safe schools" will necessarily be schools where "manhood" is suspect.
I'm not sure most Americans would be comfortable with that, period, much less with putting Kevin Jennings in a position to decide what the proper amount of manhood is. That, it seems to me, is worth talking about.
Posted by: John at October 12, 2009 01:00 PM (NcsIb)
6
I read that paragraph 5 times, and I am not sure that I can follow your line of reasoning. Not aberant behaviour but an extreme expression of a belief??? That at the very least seems ambiguous to me. But with the other two things going, this is over the top. Why not simply say: Killing someone who calls you a fag is totally and always wrong and to be condemned as extremely as possible. Words matter. Read the words he used carefully.
Posted by: TimothyJ at October 12, 2009 03:24 PM (IKKIf)
7
I appreciate your post on this point. I read the Jennings quote myself and found nothing objectionable. There are plenty of things he can be condemned for without trying to make something like this into something it is not. We don't help our credibility by doing so.
Posted by: Spartan79 at October 12, 2009 05:24 PM (aR5oH)
8
I read the whole thing a couple of times, and it sounds like he's putting the blame of the murders squarely on the vicitms. It could be shortened down to "Don't call me gay, or I'll kill ya, and it'll be your fault".
Also he uses the phrase "Homophobia". Words have meaning. Is he just throwing around the word Phobia like a careless idiot layperson, or does he actually mean DSM-4 Phobia like he said?
If these victims were actually diagnosed with homophobia, then I'm not sure if killing them is the kindest thing to do. Nor is blaming them for their own murders.
Also he uses the phrase "Homophobia". Words have meaning. Is he just throwing around the word Phobia like a careless idiot layperson, or does he actually mean DSM-4 Phobia like he said?
If these victims were actually diagnosed with homophobia, then I'm not sure if killing them is the kindest thing to do. Nor is blaming them for their own murders.
Posted by: brando at October 12, 2009 07:36 PM (LjEkE)
9
Of course he is saying that now, but just as Hubert Humpfrey said he would eat the 1964 Civil Rights Act if it was ever used to favor discrimination, in the end liberals will be supporting killing their opponents. They just lie when it is convinient. 20 years ago liberals said gay rights was not about marriage, but equality, and of course they were lying.
Libtards say they support freedom of speech, but today want to put Fox and talk radio out of business. It is not too great a step to them arresting people for speaking out. Just look at what is happening in Canada.
Scratch a libtard and you find a Stalinist, and I really mean a Stalinist. One with a blood lust deep in his heart.
He may have not said it today, but deep in his heart he is thinking it, and ten years from now it will be a standard libtard position.
Libtards say they support freedom of speech, but today want to put Fox and talk radio out of business. It is not too great a step to them arresting people for speaking out. Just look at what is happening in Canada.
Scratch a libtard and you find a Stalinist, and I really mean a Stalinist. One with a blood lust deep in his heart.
He may have not said it today, but deep in his heart he is thinking it, and ten years from now it will be a standard libtard position.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 11:29 AM (UQeEa)
10
Rush just had a clip from Chris "Thrill" Matthews. Matthews just fantacized about killing Rush like a villian was killed in a James Bond flick. (0940 PST)
This clearly shows that libtards are essentially Stalinist in the real meaning of the term. They want to kill their political opponents.
This clearly shows that libtards are essentially Stalinist in the real meaning of the term. They want to kill their political opponents.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 12:43 PM (UQeEa)
11
Chris Matthews, Assassin. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/lib-chris-matthews-fantasizes-about.html
Deep down, all libtards are bloodthirsty Khmer Rouge like killers.
Deep down, all libtards are bloodthirsty Khmer Rouge like killers.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 01:18 PM (UQeEa)
12
He's claiming that a society that promotes murder as an acceptable response to name-calling is abhorrent. And in this one instance, he's right.
So he's talking about Islam, then?
So he's talking about Islam, then?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 14, 2009 12:20 AM (hV1Vu)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0117 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0089 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 12 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.