more HS stupidity :Repeatedly Groped Teen Almost Gets Expelled for 'Boys Are Not Allowed to Touch Me

after yesterdays debacle in tennesee (you can peruse here https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862919) we get this gem :
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/newsfeature/repeatedly-groped-teen-almost-gets-expelled-for-boys-are-not-allowed-to-touch-me-shirt/ar-AAAD4jK?li=BBnbcA0
wow I always thought hs was just bullshit but stories like this make me think maybe online learning like k-12.com is the way to go after all

given what was allegedly said by the principal .I can see where the next probable SCOUTS justice got the "well its not that bad idea "from

That is some serious doublethink from the principal in that school:

Principal: “Don’t take it so seriously, the boys are just joking around, if you really don’t like it then you need to make it clearer that you don’t want boys to touch you.”

Student: [wears T-shirt saying “Boys Are Not Allowed To Touch Me”]

Principal: “We may have to expel you for harassing boys by implying that they’re animals!!”

Remember, folks, boys doing stuff that girls don’t like is just a normal natural part of life and the way things are, and it’s the responsibility of girls to set limits on it and make sure it doesn’t go too far. Girls doing stuff that boys don’t like, on the other hand—even if it’s just complaining too noticeably about bad stuff that boys do—is an intolerable outrage and deserves punishment by authority.

Jesus, is it so hard for principals to tell kids “Keep your fucking hands to yourself”?

Female principals do.

Ok. That’s very problematic. I know I come across a bit fanatical when it comes to allowable expression and how people don’t really have the right to not be offended.

But, groping and the tolerance for groping while punishing the victim for taking reasonable yet what should be unnecessary steps to prevent assault is a whole different subject. No one should have to deal with an hostile environment like that.

Beck’s a sexist.

What does “hH” mean?

:confused: I don’t see how that’s “a whole different subject”. Presumably, if you are someone who’s “fanatical” about the right to free expression and people “not having the right to not be offended”, then you would be even more wholeheartedly in support of this girl’s freedom to wear a T-shirt saying “Boys Are Not Allowed To Touch Me”.

Remember, what this girl is dealing with is not other people’s offensive speech but other people’s physical assaults. Her assailants do not have any conceivable defense on free-expression grounds.

I’m guessing a typo for “hs” or “HS”, i.e., high school.

To not be? Or to be? You’re saying that in some cases being offended is absolutely mandatory? Or you mis-typed, and meant to say that in some cases people have no right to be offended?

IAN octopus and cannot speak for him, but I’ve always seen the expression “people don’t have the right not to be offended” and its ilk used to mean that A’s preference for not encountering forms of expression that A finds offensive doesn’t override B’s right to free expression.

That is, not having to put up with anything you find offensive is nice and all, but it is not in any way your guaranteed right.

You read my post?

My first statement alludes to the impression people have of me based on what I support with regards to speech or press. It was to contrast that support with my feelings of disgust, which is why that phrase “a whole different subject” is used, over facilitating an environment where a girl is groped and then punished for a t-shirt.

For clarity, I should have omitted the first paragraph and been a lot more direct with my condemnation of the principle and the boys at that school. My apologies.

:confused: Yes, I thought my quoting your post made that obvious. Are you asking because you mistakenly thought I had you on ignore, or something? Ast it happens, I’m old-fashioned in that regard and still ignore posts and posters manually where I consider it appropriate, rather than letting software handle it.

Normally I’d not bother quibbling over your use of homophones, but I have to admit this one still works. It’s not just the principal, but also the underlying principle that deserves condemnation.

Also, glad I was right that, despite what you said in that paragraph, you would still condemn this completely.

The mom needs to do what I did and call the police herself, although I hope it’s moot at this point and they are already involved.

Nah. I just thought I was more clear than I was. Being the pit I had to ask in a not so nice way.

Thank you for your graciousness.

What this board is really demonstrating is that I need either an editor or more time with a style/grammar book. :frowning:

But boys are going to react to such a message by treating it as a challenge–and touching her, aren’t they?

Oh, I get it. So by saying she isn’t to be touched she’s asking for it. Of course, by asking to be touched she’d be asking for it as well. How would you recommend she deal with this?

I didn’t get the impression from the article that they got the chance - she was expelled for merely wearing it.

Not that I would expect the shirt to have stopped them - criminal shitheads be criminal shitheads. The person who it was meant to stop was the principal - who had been blowing off the problem by blaming the victim and claiming she was asking for it. This would put lie to his lie.

And being as it was a slap in the face of the principal, it’s unsurprising that the shithead slapped back.