James South Hypocrisy Exposed!

[keefe]

Prof McAdams exposes James South for the intellectual fraud he is!!

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/Susanne%20Foster

[ChicosBailBonds]

Dr. McAdams must be a Scooper.  He was one of my profs, glad he's still going strong.

[jsglow]

Didn't Chick clue us all into 'context' along the lines John mentioned?  I thought so.   

Lucky I married a smart level headed MU girl.

[Henry Sugar]

Prof McAdams exposes James South for the intellectual fraud he is!!

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/Susanne%20Foster

I honestly don't give a crap about this whole kerfluffle, but McAdams' argument is specious.

Having a favorite tv show episode called “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” doesn't prove anything other than the name of his favorite tv show episode.

It'd be like saying my favorite tv show episode is:
"Dead Soldiers" - aha! must be in favor of dead soldiers
"Slapstick" - aha! must like slapstick movies!
"Know your place" - aha! wants to put people in their place

I expect more from a college professor. Legitimately, I expect better arguments from random people on Scoop.

Related: South has a list of top five Xena episodes? weirdo

[CTWarrior]

Related: South has a list of top five Xena episodes? weirdo

 

Awesome!

[keefe]

I honestly don't give a crap about this whole kerfluffle, but McAdams' argument is specious.

Having a favorite tv show episode called “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” doesn't prove anything other than the name of his favorite tv show episode.

It'd be like saying my favorite tv show episode is:
"Dead Soldiers" - aha! must be in favor of dead soldiers
"Slapstick" - aha! must like slapstick movies!
"Know your place" - aha! wants to put people in their place

I expect more from a college professor. Legitimately, I expect better arguments from random people on Scoop.

Related: South has a list of top five Xena episodes? weirdo

Precisely. And yet you miss the point. This South abused his authority and damaged a colleague's reputation and career for using the same word he has on his personal website. McAdams' logic is spot on in this case. Either you understand it that or not.

[keefe]

Didn't Chick clue us all into 'context' along the lines John mentioned?  I thought so.   

Lucky I married a smart level headed MU girl.

glow - Fr Davitt taught us about moral absolutes and situational ethics.

By the way, I too married a nice MU girl. She shared a place with 4 other MU girls. Sometimes, because they only had one bathroom, they would take the stairs down to the Ardmore to use its Girl's Room.

[Henry Sugar]

Precisely. And yet you miss the point. This South abused his authority and damaged a colleague's reputation and career for using the same word he has on his personal website. McAdams' logic is spot on in this case. Either you understand it that or not.

The hyperbole is strong with your response.

Anyone watching the show "Tyrant" these days? I'm really enjoying it, but of course that means I also support middle eastern dictators. And tyrants in general.

[GGGG]

The hyperbole is strong with your response.

Anyone watching the show "Tyrant" these days? I'm really enjoying it, but of course that means I also support middle eastern dictators. And tyrants in general.

According to keefe's logic, but merely saying or typing the word "tyrant" you must be in support of middle eastern dictators.

See this is exactly where McAdams loses credibility.  Yeah, the entire "girls" incident was ridiculously dumb and over the top.  But the title of a Xena episode has really nothing to do with what South felt (wrongly) was an incidence of sexual harassment.  It would be like calling me a hypocrite because I don't want my kids to swear, but I also watch "South Park."

And with regards to "Tyrant"...they better do a better job of developing some of the characters in the show.  Everyone has gone down a pretty predictable path at this point.

[Henry Sugar]

See this is exactly where McAdams loses credibility.  Yeah, the entire "girls" incident was ridiculously dumb and over the top.  But the title of a Xena episode has really nothing to do with what South felt (wrongly) was an incidence of sexual harassment.  It would be like calling me a hypocrite because I don't want my kids to swear, but I also watch "South Park."

And with regards to "Tyrant"...they better do a better job of developing some of the characters in the show.  Everyone has gone down a pretty predictable path at this point.

On Tyrant, I'm really enjoying it. However, part of what attracted me to it was that I heard it described as "Godfather in the middle east". So I keep waiting for Barry to make his Michael Corleone transition. If the characters stay static, I totally agree.

Oh no! I support the mafia!

[augoman]

Sugar, I, too, am enjoying Tyrant.  However, seems my anticipation is driving my interest more than the current developments.  Some characters too thin to enjoy- plot has become too predictable, starting to lose interest.

[forgetful]

According to keefe's logic, but merely saying or typing the word "tyrant" you must be in support of middle eastern dictators.

See this is exactly where McAdams loses credibility.  Yeah, the entire "girls" incident was ridiculously dumb and over the top.  But the title of a Xena episode has really nothing to do with what South felt (wrongly) was an incidence of sexual harassment.  It would be like calling me a hypocrite because I don't want my kids to swear, but I also watch "South Park."

And with regards to "Tyrant"...they better do a better job of developing some of the characters in the show.  Everyone has gone down a pretty predictable path at this point.

I agree with this.  But an additional aspect is that it really doesn't matter what South felt.  He was not the "supposed" victim.  By definition, it does not matter what the "intent" of the comments was, rather only the "effect," which would be experienced by the victim.  In this case they were offended, so it doesn't matter what South felt about the scenario he should take action.

The type of action though should have been different.  He could have just called the guy in and said, look she is offended by the use of the word girl, please do not use it with her in the future.  If it happens again we will have to document it.  That would end it and would nullify any long term risks.

[GGGG]

I agree with this.  But an additional aspect is that it really doesn't matter what South felt.  He was not the "supposed" victim.  By definition, it does not matter what the "intent" of the comments was, rather only the "effect," which would be experienced by the victim.  In this case they were offended, so it doesn't matter what South felt about the scenario he should take action.

The type of action though should have been different.  He could have just called the guy in and said, look she is offended by the use of the word girl, please do not use it with her in the future.  If it happens again we will have to document it.  That would end it and would nullify any long term risks.

Really good points.

[keefe]

I agree with this.  But an additional aspect is that it really doesn't matter what South felt.  He was not the "supposed" victim.  By definition, it does not matter what the "intent" of the comments was, rather only the "effect," which would be experienced by the victim.  In this case they were offended, so it doesn't matter what South felt about the scenario he should take action.

The type of action though should have been different.  He could have just called the guy in and said, look she is offended by the use of the word girl, please do not use it with her in the future.  If it happens again we will have to document it.  That would end it and would nullify any long term risks.

One of my hats in a GE Cap business was as Chief Compliance Officer. And according to GE's Spirit & Intent Policy what you say is correct - it is never about intent but, rather, about effect. Having said which, the effect must be calibrated.

And as you point out in the case of South, he correctly listened to the aggrieved party. Where he erred was in his course of action which unnecessarily damaged a man's professional reputation.

To me, the real issue is that South suffered no penalty or consequence for taking an extreme action which, if what McAdams asserts is correct, was motivated by personal animosity between South and his colleague. This is an abuse of authority. If anyone deserves discipline it is South.

[keefe]

The hyperbole is strong with your response.

Anyone watching the show "Tyrant" these days? I'm really enjoying it, but of course that means I also support middle eastern dictators. And tyrants in general.

The difference is that your boss didn't notify your HR department that your watching "Tyrant" equated support for middle eastern dictators. Therein lies the difference.

[GGGG]

The difference is that your boss didn't notify your HR department that your watching "Tyrant" equated support for middle eastern dictators. Therein lies the difference.

Yeah, but that wasn't the point of your initial post.  You parroted McAdams and said that South is a hypocrite and an "intellectual fraud" for liking a Xena episode with "Girls" in the title.

South clearly didn't handle this right.  But that doesn't make him a hypocrite or a fraud.  It just makes him a bad administrator.

And he is no longer the department chair....but apparently the "associate dean for faculty" at the College of A&S.

[keefe]

Yeah, but that wasn't the point of your initial post.  You parroted McAdams and said that South is a hypocrite and an "intellectual fraud" for liking a Xena episode with "Girls" in the title.

South clearly didn't handle this right.  But that doesn't make him a hypocrite or a fraud.  It just makes him a bad administrator.

And he is no longer the department chair....but apparently the "associate dean for faculty" at the College of A&S.

If what McAdams asserts is correct then he is much more than a bad administrator. The use of authority for personal vendetta is an absolute moral failure - how ironic for the Chair of a Philosophy Department at a Jesuit University.

You cannot reprimand a subordinate for the use of the very word you display on your own website. Situational ethics never apply. John McAdams logic is impeccable.

[GGGG]

You cannot reprimand a subordinate for the use of the very word you display on your own website. Situational ethics never apply. John McAdams logic is impeccable.

It's not situational ethics.  One was used to describe professional colleagues.  The other was the actual title of an episode.

So if I reprimanded an employee for calling another employee a "n*gger" but said that I enjoy the play "N*gger Weback Chink" (an actual play BTW), does that make me a hypocrite?  (I actually tried to use the actual word without the asterisk, but wasn't able to.)

Of course not.  It's a complete reach by McAdams.

[keefe]

It's not situational ethics.  One was used to describe professional colleagues.  The other was the actual title of an episode.

So if I reprimanded an employee for calling another employee a "n*gger" but said that I enjoy the play "N*gger Weback Chink" (an actual play BTW), does that make me a hypocrite?  (I actually tried to use the actual word without the asterisk, but wasn't able to.)

Of course not.  It's a complete reach by McAdams.

If the use of the term girl to describe a grown female is offensive then it is consistently so. Applying it to a colleague does not make it more offensive. Nor does its use in any other application make it less so.

[GGGG]

If the use of the term girl to describe a grown female is offensive then it is consistently so. Applying it to a colleague does not make it more offensive. Nor does its use in any other application make it less so.

Wrong.  It is the actual title of an episode.  Go back to my example.  Simply saying that I like a play with the word "N*gger" in it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't like the use of the word otherwise.

Ironically, you are falling into the same trap that South fell into.  Failing to see the situation in which a word was used is what started this whole mess to begin with.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

If the use of the term girl to describe a grown female is offensive then it is consistently so. Applying it to a colleague does not make it more offensive. Nor does its use in any other application make it less so.

Come. On.

The word "girl" isn't inherently offensive.

Application matters.

I can say "dogs are my favorite pets" on my company profile page, and that's ok.

I cannot however, call the females in HR "A bunch of dogs." That's not appropriate.

[keefe]

Wrong.  It is the actual title of an episode.  Go back to my example.  Simply saying that I like a play with the word "N*gger" in it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't like the use of the word otherwise.

Ironically, you are falling into the same trap that South fell into.  Failing to see the situation in which a word was used is what started this whole mess to begin with.

Comparing "N*gger" with "girl" is fallacious. 

[shiloh26]

Comparing "N*gger" with "girl" is fallacious. 

Take an example with "girl", then, the point stands.  If I go up to an unfamiliar female colleague here at work and say "Hey, girl!", it would be highly inappropriate and reasonably offensive.

If I go home and greet my wife with "Hey, girl!", it would not be.   

Same phase, two contexts, two entirely different meanings.

[Henry Sugar]

Comparing "N*gger" with "girl" is fallacious. 

What about "boy" or "those people" or "slope"?

Context matters, but of course you know that. Frankly, you are smarter than this line of argument. McAdams is too.

[keefe]

What about "boy" or "those people" or "slope"?

Context matters, but of course you know that. Frankly, you are smarter than this line of argument. McAdams is too.

Well, since one of those applies to me I am reporting you to the Scoop Moderators!