Iowa's Gary Dolphin Suspended For Rest Of The Year

[Lennys Tap]

We are not talking about economics here. We are talking about whether or not a radio announcer should be suspended for unintentionally making an offensive comment. I say we are accountable for our actions if we didn't intend to cause harm. I gave the parable of the Chevy Nova and I also gave a true story of being accountable for a car accident even if we didn't intend to cause the accident as ways to illustrate this point. What about you? What do you think of Mr. Dolphin's situation?

Brother TAMU,

I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.

As to your second point, if one's mistake on the road causes an accident, yes that person's insurance is responsible for damages incurred. But not criminally responsible. We save that for those who drive drunk, recklessly (both choices) or, worse yet intentionally use their vehicle as a weapon. So how responsible that driver is depends to a great extent on choice or intent.

[mu03eng]

That's fair. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm of the opinion that putting the focus on protecting the speaker's reputation comes off to a victim like saying the potential harm to that person is more important than the actual harm to you, i.e. it's better to be a victim of racism than to be called a racist.

This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.

This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Brother TAMU,

I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.

As to your second point, if one's mistake on the road causes an accident, yes that person's insurance is responsible for damages incurred. But not criminally responsible. We save that for those who drive drunk, recklessly (both choices) or, worse yet intentionally use their vehicle as a weapon. So how responsible that driver is depends to a great extent on choice or intent.

Excellent, sounds like we are on the same page. Earlier I said this:

Intent matters to a degree. You are right that we should treat someone who intentionally says something racist more harshly than someone who makes a mistake.

So I agree intent changes the degree to which we hold someone accountable but whether or not they are accountable depends on the impact that they cause.

[MUBurrow]

This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.

This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.

I couldn't agree with this more. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a remarkably high standard. It is objectively the right one when we are talking about the state taking away a person's freedoms.  Whereas the justice system necessarily focuses on the alleged perpetrator, because it needs to clear a remarkably high bar to use its power to take away a person's freedom - that's not the right standard in a social or moral context. There, I think we should be collectively applying something more like a reasonableness or weight of the evidence standard. Just because someone couldn't necessarily get a guilty verdict in a court doesn't mean their claims shouldn't be taken seriously, and it doesn't mean the accused shouldn't bear the repercussions of the alleged victim's claims.  To be unwilling to allow any accused to bear any social or moral repercussions unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that in every single close call, the victim bears the burden, which is crap.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.

This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.

I couldn't agree with this more. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a remarkably high standard. It is objectively the right one when we are talking about the state taking away a person's freedoms.  Whereas the justice system necessarily focuses on the alleged perpetrator, because it needs to clear a remarkably high bar to use its power to take away a person's freedom - that's not the right standard in a social or moral context. There, I think we should be collectively applying something more like a reasonableness or weight of the evidence standard. Just because someone couldn't necessarily get a guilty verdict in a court doesn't mean their claims shouldn't be taken seriously, and it doesn't mean the accused shouldn't bear the repercussions of the alleged victim's claims.  To be unwilling to allow any accused to bear any social or moral repercussions unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that in every single close call, the victim bears the burden, which is crap.

Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.

[Cheeks]

Imagine if Dolphin was the announcer for the Phoenix Suns and while all this was going on the Suns Gorilla mascot was entertaining fans in the background......the severity of fragile minds exploding into the ether is almost too much to bare.  How is it the Suns can even have such a mascot? 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Imagine if Dolphin was the announcer for the Phoenix Suns and while all this was going on the Suns Gorilla mascot was entertaining fans in the background......the severity of fragile minds exploding into the there is almost too much to bare.  How is it the Suns can even have such a mascot?

I think you are aware, but in case you are not, no one is saying that the image of gorilla is offensive. They are saying it is offensive to compare a black person to a gorilla. So having a gorilla as a mascot is not offensive. If the Sun's announcers was to say "DeAndre Ayton looks like our mascot!" that would be offensive.

Why does someone disagreeing with you about something being offensive mean that they have a "fragile mind" the is "exploding"? Can't reasonable people disagree on what is and isn't offensive?

Also, what did you think of the parable of the Chevy Nova? I've asked a few times and am really curious as to your thoughts.

[Cheeks]

I think you are aware, but in case you are not, no one is saying that the image of gorilla is offensive. They are saying it is offensive to compare a black person to a gorilla. So having a gorilla as a mascot is not offensive. If the Sun's announcers was to say "DeAndre Ayton looks like our mascot!" that would be offensive.

Why does someone disagreeing with you about something being offensive mean that they have a "fragile mind" the is "exploding"? Can't reasonable people disagree on what is and isn't offensive?

Also, what did you think of the parable of the Chevy Nova? I've asked a few times and am really curious as to your thoughts.

No one?  You sure about that?  I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that.  People are preprogrammed to be offended by this stuff now.  It’s on autopilot.

Chevy Nova.   Fact checks. Urban legend


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanish/


https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-nova-did-not-sell-poorly-in-latin-america-due-to-its-name/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No one?  You sure about that?  I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that.  People are preprogrammed to be offended by this stuff now.  It’s on autopilot.

Chevy Nova.   Fact checks. Urban legend


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanish/


https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-nova-did-not-sell-poorly-in-latin-america-due-to-its-name/

As has been discussed previously, the Chevy Nova story is a parable. A story meant to teach a lesson, it doesn't matter if the story actually happened. What do you think of the message? That we are accountable for our actions even if we didn't intend a negative impact.

And yes, I am sure about that. No one in this thread has claimed that a gorilla is offensive, just comparing a black person to one is. I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who think a gorilla by itself is offensive but I am using the reasonable person standard. I think everyone in this conversation would agree they aren't reasonable.

And why does disagreeing with you mean that someone has a "fragile mind" that is "exploding"?

[Pakuni]

This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.

This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.

This is really well said.
Thanks

[Pakuni]

No one?  You sure about that?  I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that.

There are hundreds of examples on social media right now saying gorillas are offensive? (We're talking gorillas here, not the context in which they are placed).

[MUBurrow]

Why ya'll let Chicos straw man you to death, I'll never know.

[Cheeks]

As has been discussed previously, the Chevy Nova story is a parable. A story meant to teach a lesson, it doesn't matter if the story actually happened. What do you think of the message? That we are accountable for our actions even if we didn't intend a negative impact.

And yes, I am sure about that. No one in this thread has claimed that a gorilla is offensive, just comparing a black person to one is. I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who think a gorilla by itself is offensive but I am using the reasonable person standard. I think everyone in this conversation would agree they aren't reasonable.

And why does disagreeing with you mean that someone has a "fragile mind" that is "exploding"?

Has nothing to do with disagreeing with me or not.  People are free to disagree with anyone.  Just as people are free to poke at why they are disagreeing. 

There are a lot of UNreasonable people out there today, to many in positions of power....unfortunately.  To many with giant megaphones on BOTH sides trying to push their agendas, one group in particular that runs 24/7/365 and has reach globally on all kinds of devices....I come from that world...the megaphone is insanely powerful and about 90% of them in the same row boat together on message and mission. The reasonable person standard has gone the way of the dodo bird.  That's why I said fragile minds, not because they disagree with me but because they are preprogrammed in today's age to be victims at first site, and if they get marching orders from the right generals....it really gets kicked into high gear.

On your NOVA example then, is the media ACCOUNTABLE for their actions when they smear people and never apologize? Is it appropriate that the Covington kids are suing for $250M and more to get that accountability they refused to acknowledge in their rush to judgment?  Doesn't that accountability in actions go both ways?  Another article yesterday about a lawsuit won by a young man railroaded in a sexual harassment case in college because the college investigator was so blatantly one sided....yes, accountability should matter but does it for so many of these folks?  Did the Duke Lacrosse team ever get a chance to play for that national title or have their senior season (for seniors)?  The coach was fired, his life turned upside down.  Was Joy Reid's homophobic comments treated the same way as others...she's still getting paid millions and didn't lose her job....accountability?  How are all these anti-semetic people employed and not being held accountable? The examples are endless....and yes, endless on multiple sides of issues. 

Accountability is great, if it is done correctly and equally, but it isn't.  Some of the most powerful people and institutions can level whatever they want, don't apologize and don't take accountability.  We all know that....endless endless examples.  So though I agree with you on the notion of it, the practice of it I find lacking.

[Cheeks]

Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.

Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty?  Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?

[Cheeks]

There are hundreds of examples on social media right now saying gorillas are offensive? (We're talking gorillas here, not the context in which they are placed).

Yup.  A team with mostly African American players with a mascot of same teams that is a gorilla in which there is historical context of racist people making those associations.....or as you say..."the context in which they are placed"

[Pakuni]

Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty?  Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?

Just so we all understand, you're suggesting that a person who makes a false rape claim ought to be treated more harshly than an actual rapist?

[Pakuni]

Yup.  A team with mostly African American players with a mascot of same teams that is a gorilla in which there is historical context of racist people making those associations.....or as you say..."the context in which they are placed"

So you believe a mascot is intended as a representative of the players on its team?
Like, the Hauser brothers and Markus Howard are big goofy birds? Stanford players are trees?

Also, shockingly, you're shifting goalposts.

[Cheeks]

So you believe a mascot is intended as a representative of the players on its team?
Like, the Hauser brothers and Markus Howard are big goofy birds? Stanford players are trees?

Also, shockingly, you're shifting goalposts.

No, me personally...no.  But I have absolutely zero doubts based on people's own words that others do feel this way.  For the same reason those people want to abolish Santa Claus, or Uncle Sam, or a Marquette Warrior, etc because they "represent" us or the school or country.  As stated, there are many UNreasonable people out there. 

[Cheeks]

Just so we all understand, you're suggesting that a person who makes a false rape claim ought to be treated more harshly than an actual rapist?

A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.

Just so we all understand.  People's lives are destroyed by this stuff.  MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied.  Just so we all understand.

I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today.  Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime.  Just so we all understand.

[Pakuni]

A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.

Just so we all understand.  People's lives are destroyed by this stuff.  MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied.  Just so we all understand.

I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today.  Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime.  Just so we all understand.

Just so we understand, Cheeks, people's lives are destroyed by rape and racism at a far greater rate than they are by false claims. Your outrage there seems curiously lacking.

The reality is false claims are very rare, and arrests and convictions based on false claims are even more rare (one study found that only seven of 216 false rape claims led to an arrest, and only two of those arrests led to prosecution). For those people, it's a terrible miscarriage of justice and the perpetrators of those claims ought to be prosecuted and punished. But in reality, you're more likely to be struck by lightning while sitting in your house than you are of being falsely accused.
The problem comes when people such as yourself use those exceptionally rare cases to call into question every allegation and offer sympathy to potential perpetrators. You like to say it's because you care about "real" victims harmed by false claims, but what you're doing actually harms real victims by discouraging them from reporting their victimhood for fear they're going to called liars.
And, just in case I wasn't clear, those people's lives have been knowingly "destroyed" every bit and more as the victims of false claims.

Also, you wrote this previously:
"I would say those that pull these hoaxes should get double punishment because of what it does to legit cases."

[mu03eng]

Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.

Correct, too often we assume a not guilty verdict means nothing happened. Something very well could have happened but it either didn't rise to a convictable offense and/or it wasn't legally provable to be such.

One thing I think about with regard to false allegations is that they are so low, but I think that is largely a function of the reporting of "factual" allegations is so low. The burden to report something like sexual harassment is so high that those who have been harassed, etc don't want to clear the barrier let alone someone who is faking it wanting to do so. In a really weird way an explosion of false allegations would be a short term positive because it would mean we've successfully lowered the barrier/burden to the whole process for victims.

[mu03eng]

A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.  MASSIVE.

Just so we all understand.  People's lives are destroyed by this stuff.  MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied.  Just so we all understand.

I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today.  Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime.  Just so we all understand.

So you are advocating that if someone is 100% lying about another person's action that they should have significant punishment....I don't think anyone disagrees. However, a not guilty verdict does not make accusations 100% false, just means they aren't provable. The scenario you describe for massive penalties is near zero in terms of actual cases that have or could happen.

[MU82]

Impressed this thread is still going on.

Have enjoyed just sitting back and letting others do their thing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Has nothing to do with disagreeing with me or not.  People are free to disagree with anyone.  Just as people are free to poke at why they are disagreeing. 

There are a lot of UNreasonable people out there today, to many in positions of power....unfortunately.  To many with giant megaphones on BOTH sides trying to push their agendas, one group in particular that runs 24/7/365 and has reach globally on all kinds of devices....I come from that world...the megaphone is insanely powerful and about 90% of them in the same row boat together on message and mission. The reasonable person standard has gone the way of the dodo bird.  That's why I said fragile minds, not because they disagree with me but because they are preprogrammed in today's age to be victims at first site, and if they get marching orders from the right generals....it really gets kicked into high gear.

On your NOVA example then, is the media ACCOUNTABLE for their actions when they smear people and never apologize? Is it appropriate that the Covington kids are suing for $250M and more to get that accountability they refused to acknowledge in their rush to judgment?  Doesn't that accountability in actions go both ways?  Another article yesterday about a lawsuit won by a young man railroaded in a sexual harassment case in college because the college investigator was so blatantly one sided....yes, accountability should matter but does it for so many of these folks?  Did the Duke Lacrosse team ever get a chance to play for that national title or have their senior season (for seniors)?  The coach was fired, his life turned upside down.  Was Joy Reid's homophobic comments treated the same way as others...she's still getting paid millions and didn't lose her job....accountability?  How are all these anti-semetic people employed and not being held accountable? The examples are endless....and yes, endless on multiple sides of issues. 

Accountability is great, if it is done correctly and equally, but it isn't.  Some of the most powerful people and institutions can level whatever they want, don't apologize and don't take accountability.  We all know that....endless endless examples.  So though I agree with you on the notion of it, the practice of it I find lacking.

So what I'm getting from this is that you agree, we should be accountable for our actions regardless of our intent. You just think not everyone is held accountable in the same way. Is that correct?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty?  Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if someone who makes a false allegation of rape (or any other crime) should be punished more harshly than an actual rapist. If that is your question then the answer is no. It takes just as many resources to investigate a false claim as a true one, and in most cases the damage done to a victim of rape is much greater than the damage done to a victim of false accusation.

If your question is should someone who makes a false allegation of rape (or any other crime) receive a penalty equal to or greater than the damage suffered by the victim of the false allegation then I would say the answer is yes.

And as has been discussed in other posts, a not guilty verdict does not equal a false allegation. Not filing charges does not equal a false allegation. Settling out of court does not equal a false allegation. An allegation of false allegation would be subject to the same presumption of innocence and beyond all reasonable doubt standard that was afforded to the victim of the false allegation. There would have to be proof that that the allegation was a complete fabrication in order for someone to be convicted of making a false allegation.