High School Teacher Gives Tough Love Graduation Speech: Are You Exceptional or Just Like Everyone Else?
SodaHead News
2012/06/11 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
200 votes
|
|
45% | |||
|
247 votes
|
|
55% | |||
Usually, graduation speeches encourage grads to charge into the world with their chins held high, that diploma proudly tucked under their arm. You've graduated college; you're exceptional; it's time to make something of yourself. But that's not exactly how David McCullough Jr.'s speech went when the English teacher spoke at Wellesley High's commencement this year. On the contrary. He told graduates they're just like everyone else, and the controversial message immediately went viral.
McCullough said, "You are not special. You are not exceptional ... Even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you ... You've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble wrapped ... We have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement ... The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you're not special. Because everyone is." What do you think of the tough love speech?
McCullough said, "You are not special. You are not exceptional ... Even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you ... You've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble wrapped ... We have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement ... The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you're not special. Because everyone is." What do you think of the tough love speech?
Top Opinion
-
El Prez 2012/06/11 17:21:45I'm exceptional!
+10Because I have spent the better part of my life making sure that I am exceptional. However, by the standards set by Mr. McCullough, I am not unique. Unique is rare, exceptional is more easily attained. The later day inclination to give trophys for participation, praise all miltary personel as heros and in general dilute real achievment and heroism, has created something of a feeling of special priviledge among some of our youth. The "tough love" speech might be useful so long as the message of carrying on to find your exceptional character is contained within. He was trying to wake them to the truth and that is always good.
That's quite a stretch I think.
It would require that any person has the foresight and presence of mind to foresee a scenario where they would become guilty in the future if they didn't act?
Those decisions aren't made in the fullness of time and consideration- but immediately and instinctively.
People only think about survivors guilt after the fact- most are not aware it exists- let alone predicate their behavior on it's possibility!
Have you ever thrown yourself between an aggressor and an innocent? I have, in several instances- and have the twice broken nose to prove it.
That's the point- concern for the self was negated- it was concern for the other person that took precedence-
Gandhi sacrificed a bit more than the quality of his life- he sacrificed his very life. You know that he was aware of the dangers the day that he went to that prayer meeting. Do you know who killed him? And why? The RSS is thriving today- fueled by their hatred and prejudice- hell- we gave them 85 million dollars worth of nukes recently.
Where exactly were you going with this line of thought?
You see, concern for the self includes one's values. If I let someone be beaten on, then my values would have been sacrificed. It's much easier to sacrifice my comfort, and my body for my values. You're making my point for me, here.
You see? Self isn't just your body, or your life, it's your beliefs, and your values, as well. When you're willing to sacrifice those for another person, along with your body and life, then, as I said, you may just be truly selfless.
As I've repeated several times now- it is an instinct.
"Intervening" was not the example I gave. It does not contain the elements mentioned.
From your own example- a soldier doesn't 'intervene' between an intended victim and a bullet.
But that was your own standard- not mine.
It just so happens it is within my realm of experience.
I don't actually understand how sacrificing your beliefs and values constitute a selfless criteria.
That would be the antithesis of it.
Can you tel me some of the selfless activities you have pro-actively performed that make you believe this has any importance? You have provided several as your proofs.
And if not, I will proceed to share some of my own anecdotes- I don't hold anecdotes up as proof of anything other than that people do things.
But I do have my own discernment to impart regarding my own.
On the other hand, if we're talking about "instincts" then it's not a conscious decision, in which case, the real "value" of it is completely removed, as it is an unconscious action. Noble, certainly, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's selfless, because it can't be a conscious decision.
So do I.
I'll respect your own self identification, even when you clearly don't respect mine.
Nope- we're not talking about instincts.
After self awareness, comes awareness of other selves.
Then the evolution to selflessness.
Maybe your instincts and natural inclination lend you to create a certain stability and permanence within society- good for you.
I appreciate you.
I would rather you don't respect a thing that isn't true.
All I ask from anyone- and I am completely consistent with this-
is that people be given the basic human dignity to define themselves.
I won't try to tell you who you are- or what your limits are.
You can try to limit me- I don't care- but it doesn't matter.
I was not being sarcastic, nor indirect or devious. So, "backhanded" doesn't really apply.
Strangely enough- it has nothing to do with me, or my self perception.
That would be the epitome of...selfishness, wouldn't it?
Could be! I have to think about it.
Do you think MLK, Gandhi, or Mandela bitched about doing what they were doing? Think they complained? No they didn't. They trudged on through gladly it made them feel good.
You mistake selfless for good, and selfish for bad. To be perfectly honest with you, the former is detrimental to both you and the people around you. It leads to resentment among other things.
Oh, and don't talk down to GLaDOS. A lot of people simply don't get her. She's easily best, most compassionate, and honest person I know. You simply refuse to wrap your head around the concept that people that do great things, feel good about what they're doing, that there is something in it for them. That is not a cynical view point, nor does it tarnish their great deeds. It enhances them, it makes them heroes. Heroes don't bitch about being heroes...unless they are Spider-man.
The point of selflessness is, that it is done for ---well- selfless reasons- without expectation-
Consider the possibility that your experiences with your mother may have caused you some personal harm or hurt- and you view everyone who uses the word through the lenses that are colored by her expressions.
I was talking purely about my own experiences- when she refused to acknowledge them as valid- I thought maybe the experiences of notable selfless servants to humanity might help.
But, without being aware of it- you seemed to have proven Glados case AGAINST her- which is that selflessness does not exist.
Maybe you could actually read MY posts- before you make a judgment.
I've never really "given" to charity. Not written many checks.
I have started one or two- but I didn't touch money when I did that.
I didn't make any value judgement- one way or the other- where did I say selfish people bad?
There's a phenomenon known as a giver's high- you've gotten your recompense with the high you feel. You're right- that is not selflessness at all.
I truly am sorry that you haven't met people yet who are truly selfless in their life of service.
I have. Many times. Maybe you will too.
Never say never my young friend.
You are making judgments, you may not have said "selfish people are bad." but it's not hard to read between the lines. Unfortunately, I don't buy your life experience either. You haven't met selfless people. You may have perceived them as selfless, perhaps perceived your own actions as selfless as well. That's all it is, a perception.
No one, and I mean no one. Does something without their being some kind of benefit to themselves. Even if the benefit is "I'd feel bad if I didn't" or something along those same lines. Which many people such as MLK, Ghandi, etc are quoted saying similar reasons for their actions, thus rendering them selfish on some level
You say you've met selfless people? What exactly made them selfless?
That's a start.
If you "don't buy" my life experience- you are saying that I'm lying.
And I don't respect that.
I have a lifetime of deep and significant experiences to share-
but you are too hostile.
I really am sorry- I'm sorry that you've experienced a poverty of depth in your personal painful experiences.
I did something kind for someone without benefit to me 10 minutes ago from a knock on my door.
If you really are interested in plumbing the depths of the soul of one who will speak with authority to this issue- based upon a simple life-
I'll be open to that- but only with the prerequisite that you presume the honesty and earnestness of my views- as I do yours.
It's likely annoying to you that I understand your animus-
my intent is not to make you feel like less of anything.
But I also have value- and I do insist that you treat me with some presumption of honesty and respect- or not engage at all.
I actually haven't experienced any lack of depth in my personal dealings. I've met, and interacted with great people that would sooner take a bullet for a friend than let something bad happen to them. I know people that give to charity, even though they barely make enough money to feed themselves.
Do not assume I've only come into contact with bad people, or have nothing but bad experience. I've actually had fairly good experiences with people.
I just don't consider the good people I've met to be selfless. You don't have to gain something to benefit from doing something.
If I jump in front of a bullet going for a friend, all I gain is a bullet hole. If I'm lucky enough to live I have hospital payments. So it's not really all that smart for me to jump in front of the bullet. I lose some flesh, and some money. Yet I'd still do it because I'd rather get hurt than my friend. I benefit from my friend not getting hurt, it's my motivation. As good, or heroic a deed that may be. It isn't a selfless one.
" I don't buy your life experience either. You haven't met selfless people."
I'm not selling anything for you to buy.
I was never talking about the superficial mental masturbation of giving money to charity. That is a careless and lazy act.
"You don't have to gain something to benefit from doing something."
I don't understand what that means, or how it makes sense.
As I said, I do insist that you treat me with a complete presumption of honesty and respect- or not engage at all.
Like I sad, if you'd like some actual examples- to wrap your mind around- I'm open to that.
It seems it has never occurred to you to ask me what my opinion of what constitutes selfless behavior might be- so busy are you telling me what it isn't.
I'll tell you what, you define yourself, and I'll respect that=
and I'll define myself- and won't care whether your or Glados or anyone agrees with or respects it.
These days schools treat everyone as a "winner"... everyone gets a trophy, whether they placed or not. Giving kids false impressions that they are exceptional only leads them to a rude awakening when they step out in the real world.
Life is not fair, life is hard... when going for a job... not everyone gets one like the "trophy mentality"... it's a dog eat dog eat world. And I believe he was trying to let them know this to better them for the reality of the world they are stepping into.
How do you tie that to abortion?
This teacher's message was preparing the students for the real world... the world that is harsh and unfair and doesn't care if they get their feelings hurt.
That is a socialist outlook. Socialists believe that nobody is special... that people are numbers, an expendable currency that can and should be 'purged' for some imagined greater good. Over a hundred million people were murdered in the last century alone due to that outlook.
It starts with abortion, and moves to post-partem eradication of those with birth defects, retardation and mental issues. It eventually moves towards forced sterilization of 'undesirables', and the demand for full conformity to an imagined 'norm'. This brings 're-education', torture and murder of those who don't comply.
Most people engage in an abortion debate by arguing as to whether or not a fetus is indeed a thinking, feeling human or a lump of flesh without human characteristics. You assert that it is indeed human, but unexceptional and can therefore be killed without guilt. That is disturbing and moves beyond socialistic into the sociopathic.
I don't believe I pointed out, anywhere, in any of my comments that the beginning of a person was a "human." I simply say that the people they have the potential to become are, generally, mediocre, same with those who actually make it to birth.
You just now showed your hand again. Your argument is that people are 'mediocre', and therefore expendable? That is a truly sociopathic outlook. Seek help!
Now, I am tired, however, which lends to my utter lack of care, and my tendency to be rather dispassionate... of course, this is the Internet, and I've been on it long enough that I could have simply become utterly jaded with the fact that the breadth it reached in the late 90's brought in all sorts of vapid people.
That said, welcome to Sodahead, unless, of course, you're some silly person who blocked me, and made a puppet account to bypass their own action as I don't block people. Have a good day. If you respond, I'll deal with it later.
The rest is nothing but ego.