"None of the statements released about my being a white nationalist or white supremacist have any truth to them, nor are my political beliefs injected into my teaching of social studies curriculum. While operating under the Russian pseudonym ‘Tiana Dalichov’ on social media and the Unapologetic Podcast, I employed political satire and exaggeration, mainly to the end of attracting listeners and followers, and generating conversation about the content discussed between myself and my guests. The views ‘Tiana Dalichov’ espouses do not pervade my professional career. As an adult, my decisions are my own, and my family has nothing whatsoever to do with my social media accounts or my podcast. From them, I humbly ask for forgiveness, as it was never my intention to cause them grief while engaging in a hobby on my personal time. All future questions about the current situation should be directed to my attorney. I cannot comment further, due to the ongoing school board investigation.”
On the one hand, I can totally believe she took on the online persona of a white supremacist to get clicks and sweet sweet ad revenue.
On the other hand, I don’t think this makes her any less of a terrible person than if she were an actual white supremacist. In fact, probably it makes her worse.
On the gripping hand, if you’re willing to take on the online persona of a white supremacist, you’re probably a white supremacist.
“Look, I was totally using an online pseudonym to hide my true identity while espousing my true beliefs on a podcast. Maybe I did ham it up a little, but hey, there is no way I bring that stuff to school with me and inject my own belief system and prejudices into the classroom environment because what teacher would ever do something like that, amiright? As an adult, my decisions are my own, even the really bad ones where I pair the career of educator and shaper of minds with the hobby of being a racist shitbag on the internet.”
I especially love how, in her statement, she makes sure to specifically mention not once, but twice, that her personal political beliefs and views from her podcast “do not pervade my professional career”. Because you know, being a racist shitbag is easy to turn off when you need to present the sweet schoolteacher persona to pay the mortgage.
Welcome to your new career as a night security guard at the mall Ms. Volitich.
Yeah, I’m sure non-white kids in her classroom were consciously and subconsciously treated fairly across the board. She leaves all that racist crap at the classroom door!
Oh good, now we have hobbyist racists because there aren’t enough ways for racists to claim they are not actually racist… kind of like her guess, Hendrix who says he doesn’t like racists, and follows that with a bunch of racists shit he actually believes and spreads.
As a side note, I think it’s interesting that just a couple of years ago we were debating the ethics of silencing speech. In the current climate, this case just seems like a no-brainer.
I’m still a free speech fundamentalist, but I do have a slightly better sense lately why the Germans get so het up about swastikas and Holocaust denial.
They of all people know that some things are really dangerous to fuck around with.
It’s a very, very fine line that can be easily abused. Under some of these laws and current administrations, some would easily have thrown our Civil Right leaders into some serious problems, and that’s after knowing they were already tracked and treated like criminals.
Not here, but in the last year or two I have found that when someone makes a big deal about being a “free speech absolutist” or a hardcore free speech crusader that is typically code for “I like to say truly despicable things and I get upset that my speech has negative consequences for me.”
I’m a strong proponent of freedom of speech, but that refers to the government’s ability to interfere with or punish speech. Private consequences for speech are certainly appropriate as long as those consequences don’t themselves violate law.
Totally, private companies should take that shit down, but I don’t want them in prison though. They can say what they want, not do, and with that comes the loss of jobs and relationships… social media access.
I’m really proud that my most downvoted comment in years on reddit is me begging the CEO, who was fielding questions on the topic, to ban the Russian trollbots in the Donald because free speech absolutely should not include fucking Russian propaganda on a goddamn cat pictures website.
The Russian trolls, understandably, did not appreciate my sentiment.
Sure, the Constitutional aspect is pretty straightforward. But there is an ethical aspect as well. Advocating free speech is not exactly the same as defending the First Amendment. For instance, “The answer to odious speech is more speech” is not a constitutional argument. Plus, freedom of speech is a human rights issue, and therefore is meaningful even where the Constitution is not (eg China).
