MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: rocky_warrior on September 24, 2018, 11:37:32 AM
-
Just gonna' throw this out here, because we get at least one scathing "report to moderator" every week complaining about someone using the term, and the fact that we've done nothing about it.
First of all, here's a wikipedia of the term for those that need to catch up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_homo
Do we care?
Me personally, not really.
Don't you want to be politically correct?
Hah! MUScoop probably wouldn't exist if being politically correct were a requirement. We do need to moderate aggression and hate speech, among a slew of other things. Go Warriors!
Isn't this hate speech though?
In the cases I've seen it used - No. It's been used to clarify the meaning of the words used. Of course, they were unlikely to be taken out of context anyway, but in a very sexually minded teenager world, they could have been taken out of context.
This reflects poorly on you as a community!
Maybe. It's really a reflection of those who use it.
OK, that's my say. Not sure how the other mods feel, but none of us were doing anything about the reports, so I thought I'd chime in with my philosophy.
-
And....I just read this has recently been addressed in the NM thread.
-
And....I just read this has recently been addressed in the NM thread.
NM = No Meats. aka No Arbys.
-
Isn't this hate speech though?
In the cases I've seen it used - No. It's been used to clarify the meaning of the words used. Of course, they were unlikely to be taken out of context anyway, but in a very sexually minded teenager world, they could have been taken out of context.
I'm going to focus on this, because frankly, it's a load of crap. Nothing personal, rocky, but it's BS. It isn't use to clarify the meaning of anything. There has never been an instance I've seen it used when it isn't thrown into a post in a completely unnecessary way. Let's consider a few examples:
Quick look & thoughts... single year APR of 935... multi-year only 950. Worries for this year re: Harry... and hope Andrew finished out strong (nh) & there were no Haani issues
He said he'll never have anything with his name on it.. the "10 years" seems suspicious, ai'na? So did #buzzsbbq
Nonetheless, I think he touched some of these guys (nh) in very good ways, so I'm OK with it
I may be a lot like Buzz, in the right way, so I'm not upset.
You're speaking truth, finally. The Wreck is incredible. Everything on it.
Which Wich I never get. Portillo's is comin tho.
Jersey Mike's just left.. they are solid. Employees are tools... by design.. "want it Mike's way?".. so h0mo.. but, good.
JJ's is horrible. Only good thing are the pickles (nh) and drive-thru
None of these are going to be mistaken for any sexual innuendo. Further, the "h0mo" indicates there is something wrong with posting "homo" otherwise there'd be no zero. The only reason this is used is to make some sort of "that's not me" statement. And doing so indicates there is something wrong with people that are that way.
As I mentioned in the NM thread, it's worth looking at the Scoop Rules from the front page of Hangin' at the Al:
Some (very brief) forum rules:
- Respect other posters. Insults, and flames will not be tolerated
- If you post breaking news (sometimes referred to as rumors), be prepared to back it up or it will be deleted
- Opposing fans are welcome - for basketball conversation. If you're going to spam or flame, you will be banned
- No pornography (there are plenty of other sites for that)
- Use of profanity, racist or sexist comments prohibited
- No illegal activities (duh)
- Use caution in giving out your personal information
Insults and flames will not be tolerated. I assume that means discriminating against people the poster views as "other". The use of (NH) is to otherize individuals. It is an insult every time it is used. As I mentioned in the NM thread, that includes Marquette graduates. That also includes Scoop users. Scoop has 8,330 users according to the member list. Even if we assume only 10% are active, a recent study by Gallup found 4.5% of our society to identify as LGBTQ, so there are dozens of users on Scoop that are being discriminated against every time this is posted. Another study by GLAAD found that number to be at 20% among millenials, so the future Scoopers are even more likely to be included in that slur.
Then we have the part about sexist comments. So I assume that only applies to women then? Sexual orientation must not be included by the mods here. Because even if you try to argue it's not an insult (though the intent is obvious, and it is NOT to clarify anything) it is unquestionably sexist.
I asked this in the NM and didn't get an answer. If a user added (N) every time they mentioned a black player, poster, or anything else associated with the black community, would that be accepted? Or if someone decided to add a (B) with every mention of a female or something feminine? Or is it okay because the LGBTQ portion of the pre-millenial population is still small enough to make it okay to discriminate against them?
I'll also note, both hilltopper and rocky have now brought up that these are reported every time the posts are made. If you want to end those reports, it's rather simple. End the posts from being made. I don't think adjusting the swearing filter and/or providing a timeout to the 2 or 3 members that tend to use that phrase on an escalating level is unreasonable at all.[/list]
-
Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.
-
Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.
While calling for others to be banned in the process.
-
None of these are going to be mistaken for any sexual innuendo.
Wow. Either you're very naive or are not able to understand the snickering juvenile mind.
Insults and flames will not be tolerated.
He is indicating he did not intend the words he wrote in a homosexual way. Nobody has called anyone homosexual, nor have they been directly insulted.
Then we have the part about sexist comments.
Again, he is referencing himself. Am I to scold warriorchick for calling herself a chick? (sorry for bringing you into this chick, you should probable insist on warriorfemale :) )
If a user added (N) every time they mentioned a black player, poster, or anything else associated with the black community, would that be accepted? Or if someone decided to add a (B) with every mention of a female or something feminine?
No, you fail to see the difference between calling others names, and indicating "nothing sexual was meant" by words you write.
You've obviously very passionate about this. I appreciate that. But also you are using an excessive amount of hyperbole to describe what you think the problem is.
-
While calling for others to be banned in the process.
Yup, constantly. And yet the mods saw fit at one point to ban "aina".
I suspect there is something to what Galway says as well, but Scoop could survive the loss, temporarily or permanently, of any member. CBB has been removed time and time again. Big Daddy left on his own and it didn't impact the site. Ners was banned for a time. I left for a year and it didn't negatively impact Scoop.
The idea that any of these would be misunderstood by juvenile minds is preposterous. The only juvenile minds here belong to 50s, 60s, and 70s year old men that choose to be that way to normalize discrimination. The actual young minds that visit are more likely to identify with the LGBTQ community, and yet the mods have no care about that.
-
Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.
Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him. But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.
Again, a lot of hyperbole here. A lot of supposition too. You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours. You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.
-
Wow. Either you're very naive or are not able to understand the snickering juvenile mind.
He is indicating he did not intend the words he wrote in a homosexual way. Nobody has called anyone homosexual, nor have they been directly insulted.
Again, he is referencing himself. Am I to scold warriorchick for calling herself a chick? (sorry for bringing you into this chick, you should probable insist on warriorfemale :) )
No, you fail to see the difference between calling others names, and indicating "nothing sexual was meant" by words you write.
You've obviously very passionate about this. I appreciate that. But also you are using an excessive amount of hyperbole to describe what you think the problem is.
Welp, you gotta be rocky_eagle now (Thanks Fr D.). I'll change mine to ZiggysFryPerson (why can't I work the register? Or the grill? No that mad man is making me stick with the fryers. LiFe is unfair). Chick is warriorfemale, or better yet, eaglefemale.
Topper needs to be Middler, because even though it refers to the Hilltoppers, we don't want anyone to be offended by his implied elitism...not everyone can be on the top of a hill and all. Some have to be on the middle of the hill, some on the bottom. What about the poor people that live in a valley. Just no concern for those people at all.
Cripes, brewcity is offensive to all of the non-drinkers in Milwaukee. The have therapy and meetings and such to deal with that trauma. Not everyone in Milwaukee makes or drinks beer after all.
-
Lots of tall horses out there today.
-
Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him. But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.
This has nothing to do with personal feelings. It has to do with abiding by the rules you wrote.
This discussion exists because hilltopper brought it up in NM and you created a thread about it. Clearly you both recognize there is an issue to be addressed. All I'm asking is you address it in a way consistent with the rules of the site as written.
-
Lots of tall horses out there today.
says the guy with a Schmidt's Gay beer avatar. ::)
-
Curious question - why have I never seen JB clarify a comment that could be taken in a joking heterosexual way?
-
https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/04/why-no-homo-is-homophobic-in-case-you-somehow-missed-it/
This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.
I post it not to shame anyone who disagrees but just to offer some insight as to why some people don't like the phrase. You can disagree with them but your disagreement isn't going to change the negative impact that the phrase has on some people. The question becomes, is your enjoyment of the phrase "no homo" worth the potential negative impact it may have on the people who hear you say it? Each person needs to make that decision for themselves.
Personally, I love a good double entrende. I choose to punctuate them with a "giggity" a "phrasing" or a good old "that's what s/he said". Why use a phrase that some people find hurtful when there are plenty available that say the same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?
-
Rocky, if in the mods view, "(nh)" is deemed insufficiently offensive to warrant their intervention, then point taken. That's your discretion as moderators. Its certainly not a job I'd want, I appreciate all you do around here.
But to claim that "(nh)" is used merely to clarify that a post "intended nothing sexual" and has no more offensive a connotation to LGBT folks than "warriorchick" does to women, that's simply not correct.
-
Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him. But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.
Again, a lot of hyperbole here. A lot of supposition too. You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours. You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.
Rocky, you and Topper are BY FAR the most patient and forgiving moderators I have ever seen. BY FAR. And I think that is greatly to your credit.
That said, I don't think there is a scintilla of doubt about JayBee's intentions when he uses "nh".
But as I said elsewhere, I am in agreement with your decision to let posters show their true colors (read "idiocy").
-
Rocky, you and Topper are BY FAR the most patient and forgiving moderators I have ever seen. BY FAR. And I think that is greatly to your credit.
That said, I don't think there is a scintilla of doubt about JayBee's intentions when he uses "nh".
But as I said elsewhere, I am in agreement with your decision to let posters show their true colors (read "idiocy").
This.
Rocky and topper are good people -- one might even call them good homos (sapiens).
BJ is a whiny little beyotch who constantly breaks the rules and tries to get others banned -- in other words, a big mfin' hypocrite.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't ban BJ. As is the case with racists, I want to see and hear their racism so we know who they are.
-
https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/04/why-no-homo-is-homophobic-in-case-you-somehow-missed-it/
This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.
I post it not to shame anyone who disagrees but just to offer some insight as to why some people don't like the phrase. You can disagree with them but your disagreement isn't going to change the negative impact that the phrase has on some people. The question becomes, is your enjoyment of the phrase "no homo" worth the potential negative impact it may have on the people who hear you say it? Each person needs to make that decision for themselves.
Personally, I love a good double entrende. I choose to punctuate them with a "giggity" a "phrasing" or a good old "that's what s/he said". Why use a phrase that some people find hurtful when there are plenty available that say the same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?
Same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact? Are you freaking serious?
You've been in Texas way too long... "Don't abandon your discriminatory ways, just use different words that hides your true intent."
-
This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.
I do respect the fact that some find it offensive. I can also point out a more recent article (2014) from the guardian coming to the conclusion that more should use it - from a psychologist!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/gay-rights-homophobia-michael-sam
As well as a recent article indicating (supporting?) what I believe, it's really a display of JB's insecurities in life. Note the article has a gay author.
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/is-no-homo-still-a-thing-kvnw/
But articles are just opinions, like ours. Maybe I'll put it into the bad word filter, maybe not. As of today, I just wanted to try to explain our logic for some that have reported it repeatedly. And really, to explain that we do "get it", and actually think about these things.
-
Same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact? Are you freaking serious?
You've been in Texas way too long... "Don't abandon your discriminatory ways, just use different words that hides your true intent."
What? I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion from my post.
The point I am making is that if people are truly saying "no homo" as a way to point out a double entendre instead of as a slur against LGB individuals, then they can use things like "phrasing" "that's what s/he said" and "giggity" which as far as I know are not widely considered offensive.
In my time I have learned that while people's words and actions often have discriminatory impact, they more often than not don't have discriminatory intent. In this case, I think most people saying "no homo" don't intend to be discriminatory but their impact is discriminatory to some. My post was meant to comment on how to make their impact match their intent.
-
I do respect the fact that some find it offensive. I can also point out a more recent article (2014) from the guardian coming to the conclusion that more should use it - from a psychologist!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/gay-rights-homophobia-michael-sam
As well as a recent article indicating (supporting?) what I believe, it's really a display of JB's insecurities in life. Note the article has a gay author.
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/is-no-homo-still-a-thing-kvnw/
But articles are just opinions, like ours. Maybe I'll put it into the bad word filter, maybe not. As of today, I just wanted to try to explain our logic for some that have reported it repeatedly. And really, to explain that we do "get it", and actually think about these things.
Well that first article does come to the conclusion that more men should express their emotions and no homo makes it more comfortable to do that, it also comes to the conclusion that it is homophobic and discriminatory.
I challenge the idea that what I posted was an opinion. It is a fact that many find the term offensive. I merely posted the article to share those people's points of view. It is also a fact that many don't find the term offensive. Nothing we do or say is going to change those facts. That's why its up to each individual to decide whether or not their use of the phrase is worth the reality that they may offend or insult somebody. Some people will say yes, some will say no. Who is right is definitely an opinion.
Personally, I agree with what someone posted in the NM thread. Unless it is a blatant attack against another poster, my preference is to leave things uncensored. Better to have these things in the light of day so they can be addressed.
-
Thoughts -
* I'd never heard of NH until it was flagged; I had to look it up, which means I personally classify "NH" as an esoteric term, rarely used -- demonstrably true on Scoop, which is the center of the universe.
* We all score 'offenses' by our own subjective tastes. A few think this is egregious but myself (and rocky) view this as less. That a handful of people on Scoop are unhappy is similar to the people who were unhappy by the Indian Warrior head logo and look at the 24 year hell-hole that sent us down. >:(
* I'll echo rocky .. JayBee is barely sufferable. Fortunately, there is a handy-dandy complementary 'ignore' tool that will solve this issue for those who super want it solved. -- If the real issue was to educate us on how it's uber offensive, you've presented your case.
In the mean time, Let's go Warriors.
-
Welp, you gotta be rocky_eagle now (Thanks Fr D.). I'll change mine to ZiggysFryPerson (why can't I work the register? Or the grill? No that mad man is making me stick with the fryers. LiFe is unfair). Chick is warriorfemale, or better yet, eaglefemale.
Topper needs to be Middler, because even though it refers to the Hilltoppers, we don't want anyone to be offended by his implied elitism...not everyone can be on the top of a hill and all. Some have to be on the middle of the hill, some on the bottom. What about the poor people that live in a valley. Just no concern for those people at all.
Cripes, brewcity is offensive to all of the non-drinkers in Milwaukee. The have therapy and meetings and such to deal with that trauma. Not everyone in Milwaukee makes or drinks beer after all.
I guess I don't understand your point. No one is complaining about these things.
But the meaning of words and phrases evolve. So yeah...someday "boy" might be considered offensive.
-
Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him. But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.
Again, a lot of hyperbole here. A lot of supposition too. You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours. You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.
Fair enough Rocky. I understand it's a tough spot to be in running a forum and I truly appreciate what you guys do.
I'm not going to press the issue but the moment that I was told in high school it was an offensive term I didn't dig in and try to question it, I switched to "phrasing". I guess I'm just someone who tries to lessen the amount of negative impact I have on others. But I agree I don't corner the market on social issues.
-
Rocky, you and Topper are BY FAR the most patient and forgiving moderators I have ever seen. BY FAR. And I think that is greatly to your credit.
That said, I don't think there is a scintilla of doubt about JayBee's intentions when he uses "nh".
But as I said elsewhere, I am in agreement with your decision to let posters show their true colors (read "idiocy").
Agreed.
Also, didn't there used to be a 3rd mod?
-
Honestly, I am bit disappointed this is actually a debate. The term "homo" is a slur, period, and those hiding behind "jokes" or "PC Culture" I guess are folks who need the admiration of strangers on a message board. And yeah, I used to that be person who said things I didn't like "were gay", but my eyes were friggin' opened about how my words impacted people, regardless of my intentions.
-
Also, didn't there used to be a 3rd mod?
There are 4. SoCalwarrior and spiral97 included. SoCal lurks quite a bit and might hit you with a ban if you're bad. Spiral lurks infrequently these days but handles moderation reports as he's available.
-
I guess I don't understand your point. No one is complaining about these things.
But the meaning of words and phrases evolve. So yeah...someday "boy" might be considered offensive.
Actually "boy" can be offensive in a certain context, such as referring to a black adult male as "boy."
-
It is juvenile. And sad that anyone feels the need to use it in 2018. But it takes a lot to get me on the 'ban'dragon. Acknowledge it for what it is and who it is and leave it.
-
Actually "boy" can be offensive in a certain context, such as referring to a black adult male as "boy."
Reminds me .. an early job, I was the only white guy in an office. My (far older) boss was into body building and would eat mass amounts of protein at lunch. One day, he's wolfing down his daily whole chicken and were giving him crap about it, and I say "well, he's still a growing boy."
10 minutes later he shows up in my office and mentions this to me, I was mortified and apologized. He knew I was just ribbing him, and that was that.
-
What? I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion from my post.
The point I am making is that if people are truly saying "no homo" as a way to point out a double entendre instead of as a slur against LGB individuals, then they can use things like "phrasing" "that's what s/he said" and "giggity" which as far as I know are not widely considered offensive.
In my time I have learned that while people's words and actions often have discriminatory impact, they more often than not don't have discriminatory intent. In this case, I think most people saying "no homo" don't intend to be discriminatory but their impact is discriminatory to some. My post was meant to comment on how to make their impact match their intent.
1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.
2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor). See how far that gets you.
3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it. Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.
And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...
"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies." (Not directed at TAMU)
-
1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.
2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor). See how far that gets you.
3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it. Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.
And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...
"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies." (Not directed at TAMU)
I have grown and learned a lot this area, and I have accepted that intentions are not an excuse. I liken it to the the type of apology "To those I have offended..." or "Well, I didn't mean THAT way"
Just own your crap, learn, and don't use deragatory language.
-
Honestly, I am bit disappointed this is actually a debate. The term "homo" is a slur, period, and those hiding behind "jokes" or "PC Culture" I guess are folks who need the admiration of strangers on a message board. And yeah, I used to that be person who said things I didn't like "were gay", but my eyes were friggin' opened about how my words impacted people, regardless of my intentions.
+1,000
As far as ignore, there's two problems. First, this isn't an individual specific thing, it's a community thing. The rules are clear and (NH) is a clear violation. This is an allowance of discrimination against conservatively hundreds of Scoop users (though there are thousands more that visit the site without registering).
Second, people use the quote function so as to make ignore useless. Either way, Scoop users collectively sticking their heads in the sand doesn't nullify the discriminatory behavior the site as a whole is endorsing.
-
While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.
I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.
As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.
-
1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.
Yes. I never meant to give any other impression.
2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor). See how far that gets you.
On this point, I actually have said it in front of dozens of women, some of whom I know are survivors. To date, I have never had someone tell me that they were offended or insulted. Of course that doesn't mean that they weren't. I can see how someone could be.
3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it. Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.
I think we are on the same page here. I would argue that most of the time people don't intend to be discriminatory.
And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...
"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies." (Not directed at TAMU)
I know you say not directed at me, but I'm confused by this. The message that I'm getting is that you feel that people on one side of this argument were stereotyping the other side. I have seen disagreement and accusations but nothing I would classify as stereotyping. Apologies if I am off base.
-
I have grown and learned a lot this area, and I have accepted that intentions are not an excuse. I liken it to the the type of apology "To those I have offended..." or "Well, I didn't mean THAT way"
Just own your crap, learn, and don't use deragatory language.
I see what you are getting at but I disagree. Intent is not an excuse but it does give context. Personally, I think someone intending to say something racist or homophobic is worse than someone who says something racist or homophobic without realizing it. One is borne out of hate the other out of ignorance.
I know the apologies you are referring to and I agree that they usually ring hollow. But I do think it is possible for someone to explain their intent while apologizing for their impact. E.G. "I am sorry for what I said. I didn't intend it the way it was received but that doesn't change the fact that I hurt people with my words. I will try to do better in the future."
-
I see what you are getting at but I disagree. Intent is not an excuse but it does give context. Personally, I think someone intending to say something racist or homophobic is worse than someone who says something racist or homophobic without realizing it. One is borne out of hate the other out of ignorance.
I know the apologies you are referring to and I agree that they usually ring hollow. But I do think it is possible for someone to explain their intent while apologizing for their impact. E.G. "I am sorry for what I said. I didn't intend it the way it was received but that doesn't change the fact that I hurt people with my words. I will try to do better in the future."
Very well said, and 100% agree. Thank you for calling me out, as that was not my original intention ;) . But for reals, what you said is exactly what I was trying to convey.
-
While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.
I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.
As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.
Similarly this is why I stopped referring to Bucky as Becky several years ago, fianlly realized it was condescending to women
-
My thoughts, not that anyone cares but I feel like sharing so :P
- if you knowingly use language that is/can be offensive...you should be called out and it's not cool
- I dont think the moderators should do anything about it, the community should call it out collectively
- if you unknowingly uses offensive language, it's the communities responsibility to educate them as gently as possible
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
- as much as we can we should make this place an escape from the ugliness of the world, not another source of it. Act accordingly.
-
No shock JB still uses no homo. Attached is the below picture of him trying to fit in.
-
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
I know you are, but what am I?
In all seriousness ... agree completely with your post.
-
I know you are, but what am I?
In all seriousness ... agree completely with your post.
We all know you are a man baby....ya big man baby ;)
-
Just gonna' throw this out here, because we get at least one scathing "report to moderator" every week complaining about someone using the term, and the fact that we've done nothing about it.
First of all, here's a wikipedia of the term for those that need to catch up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_homo
Do we care?
Me personally, not really.
Don't you want to be politically correct?
Hah! MUScoop probably wouldn't exist if being politically correct were a requirement. We do need to moderate aggression and hate speech, among a slew of other things. Go Warriors!
Isn't this hate speech though?
In the cases I've seen it used - No. It's been used to clarify the meaning of the words used. Of course, they were unlikely to be taken out of context anyway, but in a very sexually minded teenager world, they could have been taken out of context.
This reflects poorly on you as a community!
Maybe. It's really a reflection of those who use it.
OK, that's my say. Not sure how the other mods feel, but none of us were doing anything about the reports, so I thought I'd chime in with my philosophy.
As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?
And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.
As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.
Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.
-
My thoughts, not that anyone cares but I feel like sharing so :P
- if you knowingly use language that is/can be offensive...you should be called out and it's not cool
- I dont think the moderators should do anything about it, the community should call it out collectively
- if you unknowingly uses offensive language, it's the communities responsibility to educate them as gently as possible
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
- as much as we can we should make this place an escape from the ugliness of the world, not another source of it. Act accordingly.
You're right. The moderators shouldn't have to deal with it. They should provide a warning, and then a ban if it continues. Not hard.
-
While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.
That's fair, and personally I've tried to not use that. But I've definitely used it in the past. And I think the point is to do better, to be better. I used to describe things as "gay" in a derogatory sense. Now I don't.
I think the point of this discussion is that Scoop as a community can be better. And the rules as laid out give the mods the authority to enforce that, especially in a case of blatant sexism like this (or, as chick noted, Vadger).
I guess where this leads me is why wouldn't we want the site and community to be more welcoming and inclusive? If we know posts are discriminatory against other users, why not just correct that issue?
-
As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?
And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.
As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.
Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.
Agreed with all this.
-
As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?
And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.
As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.
Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.
What intelligent person could argue with any of this?
-
As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?
And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.
As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.
Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.
Well said.
-
While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.
I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.
As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.
A couple of thoughts:
1) The proper term for a supporter of or sports team from the University of Wisconsin is "Road Kill," "Rodents," or "Wisconsin's Favorite Junior College." Oblique comparisons between the University of Wisconsin and the female genitalia is a general insult to the female genitalia and should be avoided.
2) Incidentally, as Item 1 points out, I agree with Sister Chick. There are better and less sophomoric ways to denigrate the Road Kill.
3) I don't get the debate in here about double meanings associated with offensive words. At day's end, the goal is to communicate or call out someone only by pointing out their facts are incorrect or their sports teams are inadequate compared to our beloved Warriors (which, of course, they are).
4) From time to time we will get into discussions that will have a political bent. The best way I know to discuss politics is to try to know your audience and know how far you can go. The discussions around Marquette's treatment of its conservative professor were good, for quite some time, until they got out of hand. It's too bad but I understand why political discussions are banned after I saw this and after a few other discussions.
-
What intelligent person could argue with any of this?
First off.....I LOVE THIS THREAD! I think i'm the predominant public bestower of shame on"(nh)" and am encouraged that this gets reported to the mods (wish i had thought of that).
D'Lo said it better than I ever could, but I would like to pose that his/your post would be better suited to focus on the users of this forum and not the moderators. The blame is on us as a community for allowing this. As expressed innumerable times, it is a combination of fear and ignorance that drive the homophobic/misogynistic/xenophobic/etc posts......let's focus the debate around educating.
Mods don't have to jump in if the user base consistently shines light on the extremes.
-
First off.....I LOVE THIS THREAD! I think i'm the predominant public bestower of shame on"(nh)" and am encouraged that this gets reported to the mods (wish i had thought of that).
D'Lo said it better than I ever could, but I would like to pose that his/your post would be better suited to focus on the users of this forum and not the moderators. The blame is on us as a community for allowing this. As expressed innumerable times, it is a combination of fear and ignorance that drive the homophobic/misogynistic/xenophobic/etc posts......let's focus the debate around educating.
Yessir!
-
What intelligent person could argue with any of this?
Any reasonable person should agree with you!
-
Similarly this is why I stopped referring to Bucky as Becky several years ago, fianlly realized it was condescending to women
Honestly, I thought Becky was a reference to how “Bucky” is pronounced in central Wisconsin.
-
As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?
And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.
As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.
Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.
Thanks for your post, D'Lo.
I don't read all of the posts here and had only seen it a couple times - never in a derogatory way - so I never really thought much about it.
You made me think about what I should have felt when I saw it in those posts; I was gonna say re-think, but I just passed over it when I did see it.
So, again thanks.
-
Any reasonable person should agree with you!
Well ... duh!
I know you were being a wise-arse, and I approve (because it's very important for you to get my approval, I'm sure). But on this issue, yes, any reasonable person should agree with me about my agreement with D'Lo.
-
And I think the point is to do better, to be better. I used to describe things as "gay" in a derogatory sense. Now I don't.
This...we all have done or said stupid and immature things that probably either have or would have really offended somebody. I am with Brew in that I used the word "gay" to describe things I did not like in high school. I then met and became good friends with some people who actually were gay and realized how horrible that is. It truly is all about learning and making yourself a better person, no matter what age you are.
Conveniently, but not surprisingly, the biggest offender of the "(nh)" usage has been silent in this thread.
Jaybee - can you please explain to the board why you feel the need to use this all the time? What are you trying to accomplish with it?
-
This...we all have done or said stupid and immature things that probably either have or would have really offended somebody. I am with Brew in that I used the word "gay" to describe things I did not like in high school. I then met and became good friends with some people who actually were gay and realized how horrible that is. It truly is all about learning and making yourself a better person, no matter what age you are.
Conveniently, but not surprisingly, the biggest offender of the "(nh)" usage has been silent in this thread.
Jaybee - can you please explain to the board why you feel the need to use this all the time? What are you trying to accomplish with it?
You really don't know? ;D
-
The use of "no homo" in conversation is akin to "that's what she said" jokes. It isn't about offensiveness. Rather, it lets you know the person delivering it lacks wit and is an uncreative, artless chad not worth spending much time around.
-
The use of "no homo" in conversation is akin to "that's what she said" jokes. It isn't about offensiveness. Rather, it lets you know the person delivering it lacks wit and is an uncreative, artless chad not worth spending much time around.
We have a winner. Close the thread.
-
My thoughts, not that anyone cares but I feel like sharing so :P
- if you knowingly use language that is/can be offensive...you should be called out and it's not cool
- I dont think the moderators should do anything about it, the community should call it out collectively
- if you unknowingly uses offensive language, it's the communities responsibility to educate them as gently as possible
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
- as much as we can we should make this place an escape from the ugliness of the world, not another source of it. Act accordingly.
Allow me to respectfully share that I find your verb tense offensive.
-
You really don't know? ;D
I have no clue ;D
-
Allow me to respectfully share that I find your verb tense offensive.
I'm an engineering, I don't even know how to spell verb tense.
-
I'm an engineering, I don't even know how to spell verb tense.
Or, apparently, major.
-
Or, apparently, major.
Of course I'm a major, I'm not a minor. I'm a man, I'm 40
-
Of course I'm a major, I'm not a minor. I'm a man, I'm 40
Oh, you're a major alright. A major ....
-
Oh, you're a major alright. A major ....
(https://media.giphy.com/media/MloN2Wq530qiI/giphy.gif)
-
On topic, I hope this moves the discussion. As hilltopper and rocky were the ones to bring this up, I have to imagine they felt it was a discussion worth having. Even if in a small way, this impacts our community, be it the Marquette or Scoop community. As D'Lo said, "Adults know better, and it's unacceptable."
Scoop knows better. I sincerely hope going forward, we do better.
-
On topic, I hope this moves the discussion.
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
Absolutely no self reflection at all? What a caustic piece of work
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
You have found a sweet spot for yourself, that's for sure. Funny how being a bigot tends to coincide with being a coward.
You tell me when and where I can "come at you", then there won't be any room for misunderstanding. Make sure you bring a few ice packs along.
(rhetorical question - we already know you aren't man enough)
-
You have found a sweet spot for yourself, that's for sure. Funny how being a bigot tends to coincide with being a coward.
You tell me when and where I can "come at you", then there won't be any room for misunderstanding. Make sure you bring a few ice packs along.
(rhetorical question - we already know you aren't man enough)
Give me your info and we can chat. I’m available in downtown Minneapolis on Thursday night.
Hurry, before you get banned for the physical threats.
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
Interesting.
This coming from the guy who has repeatedly called for my banning and who has famously claimed to withhold "information" because of my postings.
Yet there is not a single PM from you in my inbox. Righteous hypocrite indeed.
-
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Ahhh....
Yet again the lame argument that unless you are doing EVERYTHING you can to change culture, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything.
Usually one of the excuses for those who are backward to excuse their behavior.
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
The "Why Yes, I Am A Barely Sufferable Misogynistic Homophobe" response, eh? OK.
This is why I support the mods' decision to allow posters to show their red asses.
-
Ban everyone in this thread.
-
Interesting.
This coming from the guy who has repeatedly called for my banning and who has famously claimed to withhold "information" because of my postings.
Yet there is not a single PM from you in my inbox. Righteous hypocrite indeed.
He has also threatened to come after me.
A pathetic little drunk.
-
He has also threatened to come after me.
A pathetic little drunk.
Another ban worthy post. Good job, brandi
-
This is why we can't have nice things.
-
This is why we can't have nice things.
You need a new job.
-
This is why we can't have nice things.
We did have a nice, cordial thing until a certain poster showed up. Hmm, weird.
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
I'd stick to your free throw campaign buddy...
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them.
So your response is a wall of text that's all whining? There's someone exposed here, but you'll need a mirror to see him.
This was a chance for you to own your BS and show that you have an iota of caring for your fellow Scoopers. And instead, you went the other way. Don't blame us, that is on you.
-
Does this mean members here can no longer refer to the Vikings as the Queens, because it is offensive?
-
Does this mean members here can no longer refer to the Vikings as the Queens, because it is offensive?
You can do it, just know it's a reflection on you as an insensitive prick
-
You can do it, just know it's a reflection on you as an insensitive prick
Is “prick” insensitive to men? How about to non-males who identify as males?
-
Everybody needs to stop pickin' on poor, misunderstood BJ.
He's sad because the boys he loves (nh) lost at home by 1000 points to the worst team in the NFL.
-
You have found a sweet spot for yourself, that's for sure. Funny how being a bigot tends to coincide with being a coward.
You tell me when and where I can "come at you", then there won't be any room for misunderstanding. Make sure you bring a few ice packs along.
(rhetorical question - we already know you aren't man enough)
Probably best to actually look at the author of the individual posts rather than just the body and assume you think you know who the author is.
Is everyone else here working two keyboards in Transylvania? Cause there is absolutely no shortage of stereotyping and avoiding mirrors going on in this thread.
-
Everybody needs to stop pickin' on poor, misunderstood BJ.
He's sad because the boys he loves (nh) lost at home by 1000 points to the worst team in the NFL.
So it's ok to use the same derogatory term that that started a 4 page thread to poke fun/mock beejay, cuz hes a not-popular poster? Just trying to keep up with the new rules here.
-
Everybody needs to stop pickin' on poor, misunderstood BJ.
He's sad because the boys he loves (nh) lost at home by 1000 points to the worst team in the NFL.
ZFB is right. You can't criticize Jay Bee for it then turn the same thing around on him. Especially in the same thread where it's been established as not a joke and not funny.
-
Funny how people who espouse taking the high road quickly take the low road when confronting the people they determined took the low road. Hypocrites. Every statement you previously made on this subject is now meaningless.
-
For the record, I believe (nh) is not necessary and it's not funny, cheap joke for people that can't come up with something better.
-
It is fun watching the same cast of characters blow themselves up on a regular basis, it's my little guilty pleasure, my soap opera if you will.
-
Hoping someone can explain this...
Player A says something that may be insulting/offensive/inflammatory/derogatory.
Player B says that's offensive.
Player A says stop whining.
Player B says you're a jerk.
And so the ultimate opinion is that player B is in the wrong?
-
Hoping someone can explain this...
Player A says something that may be insulting/offensive/inflammatory/derogatory.
Player B says that's offensive.
Player A says stop whining.
Player B says you're a jerk.
And so the ultimate opinion is that player B is in the wrong?
In this situation if player B says you're a jerk using the same derogatory or inflammatory language then that is wrong.
-
Is “prick” insensitive to men? How about to non-males who identify as males?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/jPAdK8Nfzzwt2/giphy.gif)
-
I have grown and learned a lot this area, and I have accepted that intentions are not an excuse. I liken it to the the type of apology "To those I have offended..." or "Well, I didn't mean THAT way"
Just own your crap, learn, and don't use deragatory language.
Point well taken reinko, BUT, many of us are honestly just finding out, in this ever evolving world, what is offensive, kinda offensive, used to cool but is now offensive, not yet offensive but probably will be soon, etc etc. a lot of this depends on where you live, how you live, who one interacts with, etc. nh is a great example and there are many more. Is this an excuse? Nope, and I’ll try to explain why-
As I believe it was topper who said it earlier, he(and I included) had never heard of the term before. I am only in my 50’s and I interact with a large sample of our populace, and I’m still not sure where we as a society are at with regards to pc. I remember a short some time ago, we had a discussion on the proper way to address the female gender(no offense to the lgbtq and whichever I missed communities) in say, the workplace-ladies, women, girls, ms., mrs. Etc. thank God for name tags. Another example for me is, the term racist. sadly or not, it’s meaning has expanded immensely since I was a, ahem, young child.
My point is, or maybe, or better yet, my question is, who sets the standards of when these words et.al. officially go into affect? As I mentioned, this is an ever evolving societal issue. One could wander into an area and get physically harmed at worst, or unfairly labeled at least for being ignorant of the “meaning” of certain words, phrases or even body language, mean mugging for example. Yes there are the obvious ones, but I don’t listen to rap/ hip-hop or much of the new(“hip”) stuff today which is where a lot of the aforementioned, I believe, originates.
I do think one can realize when another is either being a “gomer”( is that ok?) or being a redneck(ruh-roh). It’s ok to call someone out, in a polite way if it is ambiguous if one is being non p.c. Until one knows for sure, this is where the feathers tend to unnecessarily fly. If someone should be truly offended by something, the author should be given a fair chance to expand upon what it was to be deemed offensive. I believe most of us are fair minded. I am honestly still learning some of this stuff, so I guess that would put me part way into the “gomer”category
Disclaimer-using my iPad, there may be a few wtf’s as I do tend to miss some of the auto-corrects. It had reinko changed to reinforcements for example.
-
Funny how people who espouse taking the high road quickly take the low road when confronting the people they determined took the low road. Hypocrites. Every statement you previously made on this subject is now meaningless.
Well it isn't "meaningless." We all slip up now and again.
-
A bunch of #TheRighteousHypocrites whining doesn't do much but expose them. I looked back in my PM's over the years for anyone approaching me about it privately, but came up with nothing. Guess some thought posting publicly with insults and name calling, combined with whining and bothering the mods over and over again was a more effective means of enacting change.
We've got some true warriors of justice on here. One guy stopped saying 'Vadgers'... another won't call uw-madison "Becky" because it's so hurtful and condescending to women.. get a grip.
For those of you who are so outspoken and teared-up, I wonder what other amazing actions you take to enact change. Do you sit when 'Jump Around' comes on and complain to the school about the lyrics that discuss assault on women? Do you see reruns of The Office come on and immediately start a nasty email campaign to the networks to never show another episode because it objectifies women? Or do you mostly post insults on a message board and "snitch" in private? You're truly fighting the good fight. Great job.
(The questions above are rhetorical.. no need for you to answer, I already know the truth).
Some of you are coming at this all wrong (no mu82)
Still no reason as to why you keep using that term? What point are you trying to get across?
I had a little more faith that he might come back with something a little better than this, sadly this is where we are at in society today. As somebody pointed out earlier, why do we even try to make ourselves better if we cannot be everywhere helping out every cause. It is useless, we should just all say F everybody else as long as I can feel comfortable.
-
Louis CK..
I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs deep?
"Hey, cracker."
"Uh. Ruined my day. shouldn't have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people, what a drag."
-
Point well taken reinko, BUT, many of us are honestly just finding out, in this ever evolving world, what is offensive, kinda offensive, used to cool but is now offensive, not yet offensive but probably will be soon, etc etc. a lot of this depends on where you live, how you live, who one interacts with, etc. nh is a great example and there are many more. Is this an excuse? Nope, and I’ll try to explain why-
As I believe it was topper who said it earlier, he(and I included) had never heard of the term before. I am only in my 50’s and I interact with a large sample of our populace, and I’m still not sure where we as a society are at with regards to pc. I remember a short some time ago, we had a discussion on the proper way to address the female gender(no offense to the lgbtq and whichever I missed communities) in say, the workplace-ladies, women, girls, ms., mrs. Etc. thank God for name tags. Another example for me is, the term racist. sadly or not, it’s meaning has expanded immensely since I was a, ahem, young child.
My point is, or maybe, or better yet, my question is, who sets the standards of when these words et.al. officially go into affect? As I mentioned, this is an ever evolving societal issue. One could wander into an area and get physically harmed at worst, or unfairly labeled at least for being ignorant of the “meaning” of certain words, phrases or even body language, mean mugging for example. Yes there are the obvious ones, but I don’t listen to rap/ hip-hop or much of the new(“hip”) stuff today which is where a lot of the aforementioned, I believe, originates.
I do think one can realize when another is either being a “gomer”( is that ok?) or being a redneck(ruh-roh). It’s ok to call someone out, in a polite way if it is ambiguous if one is being non p.c. Until one knows for sure, this is where the feathers tend to unnecessarily fly. If someone should be truly offended by something, the author should be given a fair chance to expand upon what it was to be deemed offensive. I believe most of us are fair minded. I am honestly still learning some of this stuff, so I guess that would put me part way into the “gomer”category
Disclaimer-using my iPad, there may be a few wtf’s as I do tend to miss some of the auto-corrects. It had reinko changed to reinforcements for example.
This is a well stated post. I think people should focus on the offending actions first and not who says them. Take time to educate, which I think was done quite a bit in this thread by a number of posters. Usually people will give others the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly though, instead of listening to why someone is offended, the main perpetrator of the phrase has decided to double down. I just don't get that. The English language, compared with a Marquette education, should give you all of what you need to be funny, witty and to get your point across without using words that offend people. But sadly some would rather cling to the past - and I don't really get it.
-
ZFB is right. You can't criticize Jay Bee for it then turn the same thing around on him. Especially in the same thread where it's been established as not a joke and not funny.
My attempts at hilarity fell with a thud. I will try to refrain from this particular brand of high comedy again.
-
Is “prick” insensitive to men? How about to non-males who identify as males?
Goodness, you're insecure.
Look, it really isn't hard. All you had to do was say, "You know, you all are right. I won't use that anymore" and we'd be done. Simple. But you decided to double down in the other direction.
-
Point well taken reinko, BUT, many of us are honestly just finding out, in this ever evolving world, what is offensive, kinda offensive, used to cool but is now offensive, not yet offensive but probably will be soon, etc etc. a lot of this depends on where you live, how you live, who one interacts with, etc. nh is a great example and there are many more. Is this an excuse? Nope, and I’ll try to explain why-
As I believe it was topper who said it earlier, he(and I included) had never heard of the term before. I am only in my 50’s and I interact with a large sample of our populace, and I’m still not sure where we as a society are at with regards to pc. I remember a short some time ago, we had a discussion on the proper way to address the female gender(no offense to the lgbtq and whichever I missed communities) in say, the workplace-ladies, women, girls, ms., mrs. Etc. thank God for name tags. Another example for me is, the term racist. sadly or not, it’s meaning has expanded immensely since I was a, ahem, young child.
My point is, or maybe, or better yet, my question is, who sets the standards of when these words et.al. officially go into affect? As I mentioned, this is an ever evolving societal issue. One could wander into an area and get physically harmed at worst, or unfairly labeled at least for being ignorant of the “meaning” of certain words, phrases or even body language, mean mugging for example. Yes there are the obvious ones, but I don’t listen to rap/ hip-hop or much of the new(“hip”) stuff today which is where a lot of the aforementioned, I believe, originates.
I do think one can realize when another is either being a “gomer”( is that ok?) or being a redneck(ruh-roh). It’s ok to call someone out, in a polite way if it is ambiguous if one is being non p.c. Until one knows for sure, this is where the feathers tend to unnecessarily fly. If someone should be truly offended by something, the author should be given a fair chance to expand upon what it was to be deemed offensive. I believe most of us are fair minded. I am honestly still learning some of this stuff, so I guess that would put me part way into the “gomer”category
Disclaimer-using my iPad, there may be a few wtf’s as I do tend to miss some of the auto-corrects. It had reinko changed to reinforcements for example.
There will never be a list of words that shouldn't be used (god I hope so anyway) so it's always a little nuanced and why those who are offended also need to have some responsibility to determine if something said was intentional or said out of lack of knowledge or intent.
This is also why I'm very much against bans or other "punitive" actions against users of language that is offensive. If someone wants to let the N word fly or any other offensive language along the spectrum, that's their prerogative, I'm gonna tell them it's offensive and I'm going to log it as a note as a statement to that persons character and move on. Let folks self-identify and then you know from then on.
-
Pretty funny that we have a profanity filter on this website because, "Think of the children!", but we let things like nh go because... reasons?
Bring back the swearing I say, and stop the hypocrisy!
-
Whoops double post.
-
Rocket man makes great points. We are all still learning and language is always evolving. It's an extreme example but the N word was fine to say in most households less than 100 years ago. Our understanding has evolved and now most can't even bring themselves to say it. That's why focusing on the what rather than the who is so important. Call out specific action not a specific person.
It's also important to remember that we all say, do, and think biased/offensive/bigoted things every day. It's part of being human. So we are all going to make mistakes daily. Point is to try and do better, not be perfect.
-
This is all so sexually intercoursed up.
-
U redi 4 NBA to start??
GOAT; role model
https://youtu.be/V2feJrZ-58E
https://youtu.be/kc_xd6JPTis
https://youtu.be/u_clTNBJepo
-
Louis CK..
I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs deep?
"Hey, cracker."
"Uh. Ruined my day. shouldn't have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people, what a drag."
Says the guy that jerks off on himself in front of women.
-
U redi 4 NBA to start??
GOAT; role model
https://youtu.be/V2feJrZ-58E
https://youtu.be/kc_xd6JPTis
https://youtu.be/u_clTNBJepo
OK and?
For example, Hibbert's remarks were five years ago, he was fined, and he apologized. Clearly the NBA understands some of this stuff.
The real question is, why can't you five years later?
-
U redi 4 NBA to start??
GOAT; role model
https://youtu.be/V2feJrZ-58E
https://youtu.be/kc_xd6JPTis
https://youtu.be/u_clTNBJepo
My grandmother clung to using the N word until she died at 101 years of age. Of course, she didn't go to school past 5th grade, so there's that.
-
You can do it, just know it's a reflection on you as an insensitive prick
I don't use that reference, but noticed MU82 did this weekend. Didn't bother me, I was raised in a different era where we joked about a lot of things and people had senses of humor. That is lost now. I ask the question really to understand what is allowed and isn't. Becky is upsetting, therefore one must assume Queens is? I only ask. That would lead me to believe that any reference of any kind toward the opposite sex (e.g. he plays like a girl) or whatever is also off limits?
Seems to me Schmidt's Gay icon probably needs to go. Herman Cain avatar needs to go. This is going to become a sterile place, but if that is what people want. :-X
-
U redi 4 NBA to start??
GOAT; role model
https://youtu.be/V2feJrZ-58E
https://youtu.be/kc_xd6JPTis
https://youtu.be/u_clTNBJepo
I'm pretty sure the "but Johnny did it" excuse for bad behavior expires at around 5 years old.
-
Says the guy that jerks off on himself in front of women.
Whoa, whoa, easy with the dangling modifier there.
-
Point well taken reinko, BUT, many of us are honestly just finding out, in this ever evolving world, what is offensive, kinda offensive, used to cool but is now offensive, not yet offensive but probably will be soon, etc etc. a lot of this depends on where you live, how you live, who one interacts with, etc. nh is a great example and there are many more. Is this an excuse? Nope, and I’ll try to explain why-
As I believe it was topper who said it earlier, he(and I included) had never heard of the term before. I am only in my 50’s and I interact with a large sample of our populace, and I’m still not sure where we as a society are at with regards to pc. I remember a short some time ago, we had a discussion on the proper way to address the female gender(no offense to the lgbtq and whichever I missed communities) in say, the workplace-ladies, women, girls, ms., mrs. Etc. thank God for name tags. Another example for me is, the term racist. sadly or not, it’s meaning has expanded immensely since I was a, ahem, young child.
My point is, or maybe, or better yet, my question is, who sets the standards of when these words et.al. officially go into affect? As I mentioned, this is an ever evolving societal issue. One could wander into an area and get physically harmed at worst, or unfairly labeled at least for being ignorant of the “meaning” of certain words, phrases or even body language, mean mugging for example. Yes there are the obvious ones, but I don’t listen to rap/ hip-hop or much of the new(“hip”) stuff today which is where a lot of the aforementioned, I believe, originates.
I do think one can realize when another is either being a “gomer”( is that ok?) or being a redneck(ruh-roh). It’s ok to call someone out, in a polite way if it is ambiguous if one is being non p.c. Until one knows for sure, this is where the feathers tend to unnecessarily fly. If someone should be truly offended by something, the author should be given a fair chance to expand upon what it was to be deemed offensive. I believe most of us are fair minded. I am honestly still learning some of this stuff, so I guess that would put me part way into the “gomer”category
Disclaimer-using my iPad, there may be a few wtf’s as I do tend to miss some of the auto-corrects. It had reinko changed to reinforcements for example.
Good points. I had no idea what (nh) was or meant. Learned something this week.
-
OK and?
For example, Hibbert's remarks were five years ago, he was fined, and he apologized. Clearly the NBA understands some of this stuff.
The real question is, why can't you five years later?
No, the NBA fined him Bc he also dropped the eff bomb and was rude to the media. Just like many of you should be fined!
-
I grew up with my father routinely dropping n's and commenting how well-spoken black people were. I recognized at a young age (12-13, 1978-79) that this was embarrassing and resolved to be better than my father. The only republican my grandmother ever voted for was McCain, because she couldn't vote for Obama because if his skin tone. I think Obama's election is what killed her. Going back another generation, her brothers, uncles and cousins were in the Klan. I choose to not carry on certain family traditions.
-
This whole thread is pathetic. I hope all the outraged are spending far more time and energy on things of actually importance. Pathetic, spend ur time and energy on something that will make a difference in the world.
-
Norm (can I say Norm here?), bringin' major truth, aina?
-
This whole thread is pathetic. I hope all the outraged are spending far more time and energy on things of actually importance. Pathetic, spend ur time and energy on something that will make a difference in the world.
Like complaining about other people on an anonymous forum? You must be one big difference maker!
-
This is all so sexually intercoursed up.
First post that made me laugh in this whole thread.
-
Louis CK..
I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs deep?
"Hey, cracker."
"Uh. Ruined my day. shouldn't have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people, what a drag."
I absolutely love this reference in THIS thread.
I try, just as a matter of course, not to offend people (other than one particular creep), but funny stuff is funny stuff.
Comedy and cruelty are distant cousins. A lot of comedy is based off of making fun of stereotypes, be they racial, sexual, or just jokes about your dad.
Of course it can be hard to differentiate between comedy and meanness on an internet forum. I have felt the effects of that many times here as I am sure have others. I have read many comments from posters that I thought were obviously meant to be funny and sarcastic only to read the next several pages attacking the poster.
-
I don't use that reference, but noticed MU82 did this weekend.
You do know that I was using it to mock BJ, right? And you do know that when a couple of our fellow Scoopers told me it was out of bounds, I owned up to it and said I would try to be better, right?
I mean, chicos always claimed he was the smartest man in the room, so if you didn't get the above maybe you really aren't chicos after all.
-
I absolutely love this reference in THIS thread.
I try, just as a matter of course, not to offend people (other than one particular creep), but funny stuff is funny stuff.
Comedy and cruelty are distant cousins. A lot of comedy is based off of making fun of stereotypes, be they racial, sexual, or just jokes about your dad.
Of course it can be hard to differentiate between comedy and meanness on an internet forum. I have felt the effects of that many times here as I am sure have others. I have read many comments from posters that I thought were obviously meant to be funny and sarcastic only to read the next several pages attacking the poster.
You can try to offend me all you want, but you've essentially just emphasized my earlier point.
I know what you are.
-
Theres a south park episode about this whole thread. Please watch.
-
Theres a south park episode about this whole thread. Please watch.
Never underestimate Scoop's influence in the world!
-
Theres a south park episode about this whole thread. Please watch.
Which one? I feel like there is a whole season (PC Principal I think).
-
Point well taken reinko, BUT, many of us are honestly just finding out, in this ever evolving world, what is offensive, kinda offensive, used to cool but is now offensive, not yet offensive but probably will be soon, etc etc. a lot of this depends on where you live, how you live, who one interacts with, etc. nh is a great example and there are many more. Is this an excuse?
Others have addressed this, but all around good post. Plenty has changed in my 40+ years as far as what's acceptable, and I'm sure there are things happening or being said now that we'll look back at in 20 years and wonder what we were thinking.
I think all you can really do is try to take others into account, learn as you go, and apologize when you are in the wrong. If you're sincere, I've found that people will generally be willing to forgive and offer second chances. No one will ever be perfect when it comes to any of this, but if you care enough about others to try to be better, you'll be able to keep going in the right direction.
As far as MSK's comments, I'm reminded of Jason Kander, who often says "Everyone has a platform, be sure to use yours." If educating people on a website and maybe influencing the behavior of one or two people is the platform someone uses, that's awesome. If someone uses other platforms, even better. All you can do is pay attention to what you can influence and try to make your voice heard.
-
As far as MSK's comments, I'm reminded of Jason Kander, who often says "Everyone has a platform, be sure to use yours." If educating people on a website and maybe influencing the behavior of one or two people is the platform someone uses, that's awesome. If someone uses other platforms, even better. All you can do is pay attention to what you can influence and try to make your voice heard.
If everyone tries to make their voice heard, no one can.
Since it's prolly 'bout time to Godwin the thread, I'm sure Hitler wanted to make his voice heard and spread his influence, too.
Moral of Story: Best be damn sure the "influence" you're spreading doesn't come at a greater cost and/or have perilous side-effects.
-
Which one? I feel like there is a whole season (PC Principal I think).
Nah it's way earlier, I'll attempt to find it. It really boils down to what people actually mean when they say words such as gay or no homo
-
Found it. Season 13 Episode 12 "The F word"
It's about how language is mallable and changing, that words such as cute one or homo only are taboo since society deems it this way, even though they are using it in a very different context.
-
Found it. Season 13 Episode 12 "The F word"
It's about how language is mallable and changing, that words such as cute one or homo only are taboo since society deems it this way, even though they are using it in a very different context.
But is painfully obvious the way JayBee is using it, particularly when he changes it to "no mu82" in a little effort to take what he thinks is a dig at that poster. The context is absolutely clear.
There really isn't hiding behind "I didn't mean it negatively" in his case.
-
Maybee wee could just have a separate thread started wear wee all just rip da chit outta each udder. Kinda like a cleansin' and gettin' it outta won's system and such.
Aftawords, just play nice in da sandbox singin' Kumbaya tagether, aina?
-
But is painfully obvious the way JayBee is using it, particularly when he changes it to "no mu82" in a little effort to take what he thinks is a dig at that poster. The context is absolutely clear.
There really isn't hiding behind "I didn't mean it negatively" in his case.
He goes well out of his way to make male sexuality-related jokes in many of his posts, almost entirely when there is absolutely no tie-in for it. Later on, you see the (nh) and realize that the tie-in was nothing other than the psychological desire to make an (nh) joke.
Are these latent homosexual tendencies? You might be able to convince yourself of that, given the sheer amount this has happened, and how the internet is an ideal place to "test one's curiosities". Anecdotally, I've found that there is a much higher proportion of homosexuals among the homophobic male group, as opposed to the general population of men. Most straight males don't have an obsessively strong desire to make homophobic jokes, time and time again. They might slip up here and there, but it certainly doesn't infect their thought processes.
I'm not naming names, though.
-
But is painfully obvious the way JayBee is using it, particularly when he changes it to "no mu82" in a little effort to take what he thinks is a dig at that poster. The context is absolutely clear.
There really isn't hiding behind "I didn't mean it negatively" in his case.
Sorry didn't attempt to make it seem like I was defending him. I actually dislike Jaybee (and anyone else who just attacks other posters cough* wades* cough).
I was just trying to join in on the overall conversation of the words.
-
I don't use that reference, but noticed MU82 did this weekend. Didn't bother me, I was raised in a different era where we joked about a lot of things and people had senses of humor. That is lost now. I ask the question really to understand what is allowed and isn't. Becky is upsetting, therefore one must assume Queens is? I only ask. That would lead me to believe that any reference of any kind toward the opposite sex (e.g. he plays like a girl) or whatever is also off limits?
Seems to me Schmidt's Gay icon probably needs to go. Herman Cain avatar needs to go. This is going to become a sterile place, but if that is what people want. :-X
Well people have been trying to phase out "play like a girl" for a while now. It quite literally means "doing something like a girl is a bad thing".
These things are on a spectrum. On one side you have extreme examples of hatred like the KKK. On the other side you move more low level things like referring to the Badgers as Becky. Everyone is going to "draw their line in the sand" at different points and that's okay. Not every one has to agree on what is and isn't offensive. The important thing is that when you meet someone whose "line in the sand" is different than yours, you respect them.
As for your worry that this will become a "sterile" place, I think we will be okay. Two avatars out of thousands change? I don't know about you, but I don't come here for the avatars or the racy jokes/language. I think we have plenty of words and images available to us to have stimulating discussions about Marquette basketball and other topics.
-
Well people have been trying to phase out "play like a girl" for a while now. It quite literally means "doing something like a girl is a bad thing".
These things are on a spectrum. On one side you have extreme examples of hatred like the KKK. On the other side you move more low level things like referring to the Badgers as Becky. Everyone is going to "draw their line in the sand" at different points and that's okay. Not every one has to agree on what is and isn't offensive. The important thing is that when you meet someone whose "line in the sand" is different than yours, you respect them.
As for your worry that this will become a "sterile" place, I think we will be okay. Two avatars out of thousands change? I don't know about you, but I don't come here for the avatars or the racy jokes/language. I think we have plenty of words and images available to us to have stimulating discussions about Marquette basketball and other topics.
I don't understand the concept on agree what is offensive. If one is offended, then by nature a comment is offensive whether the person who said it agrees or not.
They might have qualms about the sensitivity of someone but that's a different story.
-
You can try to offend me all you want, but you've essentially just emphasized my earlier point.
I know what you are.
Wow. This is a classic.
Life hint - not everything is about YOU. We aren't all thinking about Bennie all the time - or even ever. Maybe check your ego at the sign-in screen next time.
-
I don't understand the concept on agree what is offensive. If one is offended, then by nature a comment is offensive whether the person who said it agrees or not.
They might have qualms about the sensitivity of someone but that's a different story.
And then when someone is offended you have two choices, be respectful or not. Doubling down on the disrespect to me is a signal that the person doesn’t quite get it, so firing back doesn’t work. Choosing respect is always the answer, and when we blow it we allow for growth on both sides, the one who blew it and the one who forgives. We will all blow it, we will all have the chance to forgive. Simple, not easy.
-
He goes well out of his way to make male sexuality-related jokes in many of his posts, almost entirely when there is absolutely no tie-in for it. Later on, you see the (nh) and realize that the tie-in was nothing other than the psychological desire to make an (nh) joke.
Are these latent homosexual tendencies? You might be able to convince yourself of that, given the sheer amount this has happened, and how the internet is an ideal place to "test one's curiosities". Anecdotally, I've found that there is a much higher proportion of homosexuals among the homophobic male group, as opposed to the general population of men. Most straight males don't have an obsessively strong desire to make homophobic jokes, time and time again. They might slip up here and there, but it certainly doesn't infect their thought processes.
I'm not naming names, though.
Not exactly sure what to make of Jay Bee. I will point out I don't recall him ever discussing personal interactions (social or otherwise) with any women except sex workers or one-night stands. I don't think he has ever mentioned any platonic female friends. Sounds to me like he has issues with women one way or the other.
-
Wow. This is a classic.
Life hint - not everything is about YOU. We aren't all thinking about Bennie all the time - or even ever. Maybe check your ego at the sign-in screen next time.
You may be the Jockey, but I'm the Joker.
https://www.youtube.com/v/O1tM4kQkLcY
Spoiler alert: turns out that I complete you or some garbage like that, I shed a tear, fade to black.
-
Maybee wee could just have a separate thread started wear wee all just rip da chit outta each udder. Kinda like a cleansin' and gettin' it outta won's system and such.
Aftawords, just play nice in da sandbox singin' Kumbaya tagether, aina?
The Purge
-
The Purge
Honestly, I'd prefer this:
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11112/111127507/6408185-gif-2.gif)
#ThanosDidNothingWrong
-
Herman Cain avatar needs to go.
I get the Schmitt's Gay, but why would Herman Cain's avatar need to go?
-
What Scoopers would come out for The Purge, @1neee????
-
But is painfully obvious the way JayBee is using it, particularly when he changes it to "no mu82" in a little effort to take what he thinks is a dig at that poster. The context is absolutely clear.
Personal attacks are totally against Scoop rules, and for good reason, but that's OK.
BJ is a small, bitter person. I haven't decided whether he's more pitiable or simply pitiful - for reasons chick articulated very well, and other reasons, too.
I would like to be there when he attempts to assault a 6-foot-5, 250-pound man for wearing a hat while the anthem is playing, though. That would be fun.
-
Nads, dat's the furst rule violated neerly universally, as ewe sew eloquently demonstrated, aina?
-
Nads, dat's the furst rule violated neerly universally, aina?
Perhaps. I don't recall anybody else other than BJ celebrating the fact that a fellow Scooper and fellow Warrior lost his or her job during the recession, though. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
-
I’m sure JB talks a tough game, but if given the chance to say no homo in front of a gay man, he would turtle up and stay silent.
Aside from the obvious wrong which he refuses to acknowledge, the equally embarrassing part of the equation is that he still thinks it’s on trend to say. Dude Cam’ron hasn’t used that in a verse in almost ten years, give it up. I bet you still say “Kobe” when you shoot and miss a jumper in your pick up games.
-
6 pages. Really?
Which one of you is Mike Lovell?
-
6 pages. Really?
Which one of you is Mike Lovell?
7*
-
4 pages. Why would anyone not max their ppp?
-
I’m impressed.
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49887.0;attach=5999;image)
-
I get the Schmitt's Gay, but why would Herman Cain's avatar need to go?
Ha.
-
I’m impressed.
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49887.0;attach=5999;image)
Oh, I've missed that stamp of approval.
-
Benny, my friend, you have a very very large brain!
-
Benny, my friend, you have a very very large brain!
Listen... a good troll job deserves to be recognized, period. It's not ego, it just happens to be the case that I'm the only self-aware troll on Scoop. If anything, maybe my ego is a little inflated by my mad MS-Paint skillz which need to be shown off from time to time.
I consider myself the Deadpool of Scoop... not a hero, don't want to be, never going to be... I'm just doing my part to expose the greater injustices of vendettas and retaliation by, and while, dropping nuggets of humor and adult-references along the way.
Or maybe I'm the Dopinder of Scoop? So hard to keep track of who's who.
-
Listen... a good troll job deserves to be recognized, period. It's not ego, it just happens to be the case that I'm the only self-aware troll on Scoop. If anything, maybe my ego is a little inflated by my mad MS-Paint skillz which need to be shown off from time to time.
I consider myself the Deadpool of Scoop... not a hero, don't want to be, never going to be... I'm just doing my part to expose the greater injustices of vendettas and retaliation by, and while, dropping nuggets of humor and adult-references along the way.
Or maybe I'm the Dopinder of Scoop? So hard to keep track of who's who.
I know absolutely nothing about Benny B, so I'll have to take your word on all of that.
But I do know a couple of things about the guy pretending to be Benny B. I know that he is a good guy with a big heart, and I know he has two really nice kids. I also know he's fun to sit next to at a Marquette game, even one that turns out to not have the result we wanted.
-
I know absolutely nothing about Benny B, so I'll have to take your word on all of that.
But I do know a couple of things about the guy pretending to be Benny B. I know that he is a good guy with a big heart, and I know he has two really nice kids. I also know he's fun to sit next to at a Marquette game, even one that turns out to not have the result we wanted.
You'd be singing a different tune had those kids slept through the 2nd half as well as the team did.
-
I get the Schmitt's Gay, but why would Herman Cain's avatar need to go?
Because he ran for President and represents a side. If people had orange cheeto here, they would be upset. Some would be upset if Ted Kennedy was an avatar.
Honestly, I come from an entirely different era where this stuff doesn't bother me, but it is remarkable to me in today's age what has people losing their marbles.
-
You do know that I was using it to mock BJ, right? And you do know that when a couple of our fellow Scoopers told me it was out of bounds, I owned up to it and said I would try to be better, right?
I mean, chicos always claimed he was the smartest man in the room, so if you didn't get the above maybe you really aren't chicos after all.
Did not know that, but why does it make it right? Could he not claim he (JB) is mocking people, too?
-
I’m impressed.
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49887.0;attach=5999;image)
That explains the bridge that goes nowhere.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow (https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow)
-
Because he ran for President and represents a side. If people had orange cheeto here, they would be upset. Some would be upset if Ted Kennedy was an avatar.
Honestly, I come from an entirely different era where this stuff doesn't bother me, but it is remarkable to me in today's age what has people losing their marbles.
There's nothing wrong with being a republican (or a democrat). I guess you could say it violates the no politics rule but thats the mods decision. I don't have any problem with Herman's avatar or a theoretical Trump or Kennedy avatar.
There's a difference between a difference if opinion and use of a slur.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow (https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow)
Dear god, that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time
-
Dear god, that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time
+1
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow (https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow)
https://betches.com/8-telltale-signs-youre-an-pretty boy/
-
You be you, bro-flake.
-
https://betches.com/8-telltale-signs-youre-an-pretty boy/
Need halp, bud?
-
Dear god, that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time
Care to elaborate? We’re there specific signs you did not agree with?
-
Care to elaborate? We’re there specific signs you did not agree with?
Sure, I disagree with all of them. I work in Title IX compliance in case you didn't know.
1) Not one thing has changed about due process in the legal system. On campus, those accused of title IX violations have more due process than students accused of any other violation. Or at least they did until the current administration removed all guidance from Title IX.
2) Believe the victim has nothing to do with due process. Not one person has insisted that an accusation is enough evidence to convict someone. No one has been convicted on accusation alone. Believe the victim is a reminder to support survivors who come forward, which as the friends/family/acquaintances of survivors is our role. The expectation of peace officers and investigators is different. They need to take accusations seriously but remain impartial and objective.
3) The original study that the 1 in 5 statistic came from has been proven to be based on a questionable method. Since then dozens of more reputable studies have been done that have found the similar results. Usually between 15 and 30% for undergraduate women depending on if they are measuring sexual assault, harassment, violence, or a combination. Also depends on whether or not they are looking at completed assaults or completed and attempted.
4) I would love for them to give a single example of a court case where exculpatory evidence was denied. They won't find any. I also don't know of any university cases where that has happened. University investigators are charged with documenting any and all evidence that is provided. Leaving out evidence would be a huge violation of Title IX. What the author seems to be upset about is that cases aren't dismissed outright when a complainant admits (or is found out) to have been friendly with the accused after the alleged assault. That evidence would absolutely be included and considered....along with all the other evidence. Also, they use the "mattress girl" case as an example....except the university sided against her. Doesn't that go against the author's argument?
5) There was psuedo science during the satanic scare in the 80s (which resulted in 0 convictions). Now we have a much better understanding of how memory works and how traumatic events impact the brain. Part of my job is to train other employees on the neurobiology of trauma. Later in this section she is correct about memory being flawed...which is why no university would find a student responsible for sexual assault just based on the witness's testimony. Or if they do, someone should be fired.
Overall, this article is full of fear mongering and spouting off myths with no basis in fact. The fact that they compare it to the Satanic Panic in the 80s is hilarious considering that those were very isolated incidents and that resulted in zero convictions (to clarify there were convictions for child abuse but those are regarded as legitimate. There were zero convictions for anything having to do with satanic rituals). It is also rife with misinformation. I am always amazed that these articles always fail to interview someone who actually works in the field. They just repeat the same tired lines that aren't based in fact but in fear.
Also, for every person who says "believe the survivors" there is at least one saying that most survivors are liars.
-
TAMU is delusional.
-
Sure, I disagree with all of them. I work in Title IX compliance in case you didn't know.
1) Not one thing has changed about due process in the legal system. On campus, those accused of title IX violations have more due process than students accused of any other violation. Or at least they did until the current administration removed all guidance from Title IX.
2) Believe the victim has nothing to do with due process. Not one person has insisted that an accusation is enough evidence to convict someone. No one has been convicted on accusation alone. Believe the victim is a reminder to support survivors who come forward, which as the friends/family/acquaintances of survivors is our role. The expectation of peace officers and investigators is different. They need to take accusations seriously but remain impartial and objective.
3) The original study that the 1 in 5 statistic came from has been proven to be based on a questionable method. Since then dozens of more reputable studies have been done that have found the similar results. Usually between 15 and 30% for undergraduate women depending on if they are measuring sexual assault, harassment, violence, or a combination. Also depends on whether or not they are looking at completed assaults or completed and attempted.
4) I would love for them to give a single example of a court case where exculpatory evidence was denied. They won't find any. I also don't know of any university cases where that has happened. University investigators are charged with documenting any and all evidence that is provided. Leaving out evidence would be a huge violation of Title IX. What the author seems to be upset about is that cases aren't dismissed outright when a complainant admits (or is found out) to have been friendly with the accused after the alleged assault. That evidence would absolutely be included and considered....along with all the other evidence. Also, they use the "mattress girl" case as an example....except the university sided against her. Doesn't that go against the author's argument?
5) There was psuedo science during the satanic scare in the 80s (which resulted in 0 convictions). Now we have a much better understanding of how memory works and how traumatic events impact the brain. Part of my job is to train other employees on the neurobiology of trauma. Later in this section she is correct about memory being flawed...which is why no university would find a student responsible for sexual assault just based on the witness's testimony. Or if they do, someone should be fired.
Overall, this article is full of fear mongering and spouting off myths with no basis in fact. The fact that they compare it to the Satanic Panic in the 80s is hilarious considering that those were very isolated incidents and that resulted in zero convictions (to clarify there were convictions for child abuse but those are regarded as legitimate. There were zero convictions for anything having to do with satanic rituals). It is also rife with misinformation. I am always amazed that these articles always fail to interview someone who actually works in the field. They just repeat the same tired lines that aren't based in fact but in fear.
Also, for every person who says "believe the survivors" there is at least one saying that most survivors are liars.
TAMU,
Thanks for the incredibly thorough response. You've successfully shed a light on what's really happening in the legal system vs. what I'm most exposed to: what people want to happen based on what I see in various social media echo chambers that are becoming louder and louder by the day.
-
One more thing I forgot to mention. They author says universities don't record investigative interviews. Universities are required to allow the complainant, the accused, and witnesses to review investigation notes at any time so they can dispute the investigators interpretation. While not a requirement, it is considered best practice to allow students to make corrections to the investigation notes if they think something was miscategorized or was misinformation. Panels then receive both what the investigators wrote as well as how the student edited. This is a protection against possible bias or misunderstanding.
-
TAMU is delusional.
Jay Bee,
I'm often embarrassed for others when they try to question your understanding of basketball and associated statistics. Please don't make the same mistake they do.
-
TAMU is delusional.
Hey look who’s posting embarrassing stuff again on a Saturday night! Maybe should put the phone down next time you get hammered alone in your living room.
-
Hey look who’s posting embarrassing stuff again on a Saturday night! Maybe should put the phone down next time you get hammered alone in your living room.
Edit: I am the ruiner of nice things.
-
Not alone or hammered. Your daughter is here and we’re grilling t-bones.
What the hell is wrong with you.
-
**Removed thanks to mod intervention**
This is disgusting and completely uncalled for. This should require deletion and an apology. I'll happily take down the quoted portion once you have deleted your post so the rest of Scoop doesn't have to be subject to it.
-
This is disgusting and completely uncalled for. This should require deletion and an apology. I'll happily take down the quoted portion once you have deleted your post so the rest of Scoop doesn't have to be subject to it.
Eh. No apology needed on my end. It speaks more ill of him than anything. (And I don't have a daughter anyway.)
-
Gentlemen (some of you) -
JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous.
There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him.
Use. It.
-
This is disgusting and completely uncalled for.
You're right. I would have gotten filets, but the t-bones were priced right and I cheap-skated. I'll do better next time.
-
Gentlemen (some of you) -
JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous.
There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him.
Use. It.
My buttons aren’t being pushed in the least. I enjoy batting him around like a cat plays with a mouse.
-
Gentlemen (some of you) -
JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous.
There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him.
Use. It.
The ignore tool does not remove objectionable content that, for better or worse, reflects on Marquette and the Marquette community.
The site also has other tools available to the moderators to address that behavior. By using those tools, magically, none of us would be subjected to what you describe as incorrigible.
In the words of a wise man, "Use. It."
-
Gentlemen (some of you) -
JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous.
There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him.
Use. It.
I also find it interesting that this is how you manage this stuff but not how you manage politics.
-
The ignore tool does not remove objectionable content that, for better or worse, reflects on Marquette and the Marquette community.
The site also has other tools available to the moderators to address that behavior. By using those tools, magically, none of us would be subjected to what you describe as incorrigible.
In the words of a wise man, "Use. It."
Excuse me, but I did "use those tools" to remove the content you flagged.
The tool I did not use was to ban JayBee for some period. Want me to? If you were a mod, do you think that would honestly help the situation? A day, a week or month? He is exactly the type that will create a new account, use a VPN, go to extremes to rage against the machine.
Ok, let's give it a try.
-
Excuse me, but I did "use those tools" to remove the content you flagged.
The tool I did not use was to ban JayBee for some period. Want me to? If you were a mod, do you think that would honestly help the situation? A day, a week or month? He is exactly the type that will create a new account, use a VPN, go to extremes to rage against the machine.
Ok, let's give it a try.
I'm not a mod nor did I ask for that. But the site has rules. When he engages in attacks and discriminatory comments and members point that out, they are just trying to insure that the rules the mods say they are here to enforce are enforced.
Are members unreasonable to call out bad behavior and use the report post function? Are members to be blamed because others use VPNs to create new accounts? Are members responsible for policing those accounts?
How you adjudicate the board and enforce the rules is at your discretion. What types and lengths of punishments you decide to utilize is at your discretion. But attacking the people that are asking for rules and general decorum be enforced seems like an odd method of doing that. I'm not sure why I'm the target of your ire when Jay Bee is the one you labeled incorrigible.
-
Excuse me, but I did "use those tools" to remove the content you flagged.
The tool I did not use was to ban JayBee for some period. Want me to? If you were a mod, do you think that would honestly help the situation? A day, a week or month? He is exactly the type that will create a new account, use a VPN, go to extremes to rage against the machine.
Ok, let's give it a try.
I'm gonna take your side here.
We also have "tools". We could and should just refuse to engage with someone like him. We all know what he is. We all need to shower after reading most of his comments.
I fall into the trap occasionally as do others. It's low hanging fruit to call him out for the d-bag that he is. But, rather than wallow with him, WE need to be better.
-
But attacking the people that are asking for rules and general decorum be enforced seems like an odd method of doing that.
So .. you felt "attacked" because I posted a general request (for the 852nd time) that people should use the ignore tool.
Goodness gracious.
-
So .. you felt "attacked" because I posted a general request (for the 852nd time) that people should use the ignore tool.
Goodness gracious.
This ain't the hill I gonna die on, but when one poster feels the need to attack and make overtly sexual comments about another posters kids, I feel like a line has been crossed. You are right, that the ignore is one way to handle it...but will other posters read crap like this and begin to think they now too can make comments like this? While I don't think bans are helpful, because folks will alwats lurk, create new accounts...yadda yadda...but I think this milktoast wet noodle response JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous. is not even passable for warning/condemnation.
-
Gentlemen (some of you) -
JayBee is incorrigible. He enjoys pushing your buttons, pushing the envelope, saying the outrageous.
There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him.
Use. It.
+1. Brew (and some others) spend an inordinate amount of time being outraged. Feeling so morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior must be exhausting. Reminds me of the Pharisee whose (rejected) prayer was "thanks for making me so much better than him" (the Publican).
-
+1. Brew (and some others) spend an inordinate amount of time being outraged. Feeling so morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior must be exhausting. Reminds me of the Pharisee whose (rejected) prayer was "thanks for making me so much better than him" (the Publican).
I imagine I am an "other". Just looking to help clean up the place a bit. It's really easy not to be an a-hole on the internet. Solution: Don't be an a-hole on the internet. But Brew and folks like myself are the problem. ::)
-
+1. Brew (and some others) spend an inordinate amount of time being outraged. Feeling so morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior must be exhausting. Reminds me of the Pharisee whose (rejected) prayer was "thanks for making me so much better than him" (the Publican).
Uh. Try again. It isn’t about being morally superior.
-
I also find it interesting that this is how you manage this stuff but not how you manage politics.
I'm not really sure what this means. We strive to execute moderation with an equal amount of inconsistency!
-
+1. Brew (and some others) spend an inordinate amount of time being outraged. Feeling so morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior must be exhausting. Reminds me of the Pharisee whose (rejected) prayer was "thanks for making me so much better than him" (the Publican).
Being morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior is awesome, and not at all exhausting.
-
The ignore tool does not remove objectionable content that, for better or worse, reflects on Marquette and the Marquette community.
The site also has other tools available to the moderators to address that behavior. By using those tools, magically, none of us would be subjected to what you describe as incorrigible.
In the words of a wise man, "Use. It."
I agree. Since we're worried about the perspective of the Marquette community, I find those that use their babies and letter boards as tools in Twitter recruiting of players just as embarrassing. At least Jay Bee hasn't been made fun of on other school's fansites like yourself.
topper - In the words of a wise man, "Use. It."
-
I'm not really sure what this means. We strive to execute moderation with an equal amount of inconsistency!
I support the inconsistency, start your own board if you want a damn constitution and statutes governing its use. The rules are guidelines more than anything else, lighten up Francis.
-
So .. you felt "attacked" because I posted a general request (for the 852nd time) that people should use the ignore tool.
Goodness gracious.
No, it was the obvious condescension in your tone "There is an alternative to feeling the outrage on his postings, the handy-dandy complementary INGORE tool. Magically, you will not be subjected to him." coupled with the defensive response you gave when you attempted to turn my questioning of these allowances back on me "The tool I did not use was to ban JayBee for some period. Want me to? If you were a mod, do you think that would honestly help the situation? A day, a week or month? He is exactly the type that will create a new account, use a VPN, go to extremes to rage against the machine."
As far as Lennys' comment, of the many quality responses, I'll second Reinko's:
I imagine I am an "other". Just looking to help clean up the place a bit. It's really easy not to be an a-hole on the internet. Solution: Don't be an a-hole on the internet. But Brew and folks like myself are the problem. ::)
I'm not at all exhausted, and the answer to not being called out as an a-hole is to not be an a-hole.
I agree. Since we're worried about the perspective of the Marquette community, I find those that use their babies and letter boards as tools in Twitter recruiting of players just as embarrassing. At least Jay Bee hasn't been made fun of on other school's fansites like yourself.
topper - In the words of a wise man, "Use. It."
But the best...if I'm to be banned here for a Twitter post, so be it. However I'm pretty sure reporting my Twitter won't go to hilltopper.
-
I imagine I am an "other". Just looking to help clean up the place a bit. It's really easy not to be an a-hole on the internet. Solution: Don't be an a-hole on the internet. But Brew and folks like myself are the problem. ::)
But this can go sideways when a perceived block of like minded thinkers all act in unison, don't you think? Outraged by some things, wholly supportive of others that might outrage the other side.
-
Uh. Try again. It isn’t about being morally superior.
Not totally - there also a good deal of condescending, too. Your post is a good example.
-
But this can go sideways when a perceived block of like minded thinkers all act in unison, don't you think?
Doesn’t happen. Nice try.
-
But this can go sideways when a perceived block of like minded thinkers all act in unison, don't you think? Outraged by some things, wholly supportive of others that might outrage the other side.
100% agree. but I hope to most of us, making overtly sexual comments posts about another posters kids is a cause for at the very least "mild outrage".
-
Not totally - there also a good deal of condescending, too. Your post is a good example.
Oh I fully admit to being condescending when the point is moronic. That will never change.
-
Being morally, ethically, politically and intellectually superior is awesome, and not at all exhausting.
Finally something you and JayBee can agree on!
-
Sure, I disagree with all of them. I work in Title IX compliance in case you didn't know.
Also, for every person who says "believe the survivors" there is at least one saying that most survivors are liars.
You make excellent points, but also some questions that will remain for my wife and I. This week I have read some people that say believe the survivors and nothing more. That is dangerous. My wife and I were blessed to have multiple children and multiple genders. Having daughters and sons for any parent makes this very tough.
No one wants their daughters to ever be sexually assaulted in any way, and we all know it has happened throughout history. It is disgusting, criminal, hateful, disrespectful. But I don't think parents of sons want their boys kicked out of school, denied job promotions, etc, based on the accusations that are not provable, either.
That presents a terrible dilemma. You have a tough job. You have to get it right or there are consequences. My heart goes out to you, it also goes out to the women assaulted, and to the men wrongfully accused. Whether that number is 2%, 8% or 17% in the articles I have read. No question crimes are under reported because women do not want to deal with it. We also cannot ignore the impacts to men charged by women that proved to be 100% wrong.
What has always struck me at the college level in how this is handled is the right to face your accuser. Am I wrong, or has it not been allowed? It isn't a court of law where one always has that right, but when people can be kicked out of school based on allegations, why should the accused not be allowed to confront their accuser? As a matter of fairness?
If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me.
-
Doesn’t happen. Nice try.
It does happen, if you don't recognize and others do that should tell you something.
-
What has always struck me at the college level in how this is handled is the right to face your accuser. Am I wrong, or has it not been allowed? It isn't a court of law where one always has that right, but when people can be kicked out of school based on allegations, why should the accused not be allowed to confront their accuser? As a matter of fairness?
A college disciplinary board is not a court of law, and being privately punished or even expelled from school is not the same as losing one's freedom or a public criminal record.
-
It does happen, if you don't recognize and others do that should tell you something.
Nah. You’re just being the aggrieved victim you’ve always been.
-
No, it was the obvious condescension in your tone
I heard that too ::)
How about nobody respond to the drunk? Problem solved.
-
100% agree. but I hope to most of us, making overtly sexual comments posts about another posters kids is a cause for at the very least "mild outrage".
I agree with this analysis
-
You make excellent points, but also some questions that will remain for my wife and I. This week I have read some people that say believe the survivors and nothing more. That is dangerous. My wife and I were blessed to have multiple children and multiple genders. Having daughters and sons for any parent makes this very tough.
No one wants their daughters to ever be sexually assaulted in any way, and we all know it has happened throughout history. It is disgusting, criminal, hateful, disrespectful. But I don't think parents of sons want their boys kicked out of school, denied job promotions, etc, based on the accusations that are not provable, either.
That presents a terrible dilemma. You have a tough job. You have to get it right or there are consequences. My heart goes out to you, it also goes out to the women assaulted, and to the men wrongfully accused. Whether that number is 2%, 8% or 17% in the articles I have read. No question crimes are under reported because women do not want to deal with it. We also cannot ignore the impacts to men charged by women that proved to be 100% wrong.
What has always struck me at the college level in how this is handled is the right to face your accuser. Am I wrong, or has it not been allowed? It isn't a court of law where one always has that right, but when people can be kicked out of school based on allegations, why should the accused not be allowed to confront their accuser? As a matter of fairness?
If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me.
First, I would challenge your use of pronouns a bit. While yes a majority of assaults are male against female, women can be the perpetrators and men can be the victim/survivors. I had a case just last week were we found a female student responsible for domestic violence against her boyfriend.
As for the rest, you are mostly correct. Technically, there are no universal rules at the moment. The current administration rescinded all guidance on Title IX so schools are free to interpret it as they see fit. Most universities are sticking to the Obama era guidelines until new ones are issued.
Under the Obama era guidelines, universities are not required to allow the accused to directly cross examine the accuser. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to cross examine them indirectly. Complainants have the right to choose whether or not they wish to participate in the panel process. If they choose not to, then the accused will never have an opportunity to ask them questions directly. This also means that the complainant doesn't get a chance to answer the panel's question to strengthen his or her own case. When the complainant doesn't participate, then the only evidence that is considered is the accused's testimony, any witness testimony, and the investigation report. The complainant is required to have access to the investigation report, including the interviews of the complainant, so they can directly address and challenge anything said by the complainant. The complainant is then not able to respond to any challenges or disputes brought forward by the accused. Accused students can also choose not to participate in the process. The panel will then hear the case in absentia and the decision is based on the investigation report, any witness testimony, and the testimony of the complainant (if they choose to participate).
If both students do participate in the process then universities are "strongly discouraged" from allowing them to directly cross examine each other. Different universities interpret this differently. Some don't allow cross examination period. Others allow cross examination through a third party of over the phone. Both parties are required to be allowed to hear the testimony of the other. So while they can't directly question each other, they can respond to each other's testimony and ask the panel to ask the other specific questions.
So while yes, accused students do not always get to directly cross examine their accuser, they do get to cross examine them indirectly. This would not be appropriate in a court of law but this is not a court of law. This is a disciplinary board. The priority of the disciplinary board is ensure a safe academic environment for all students, both accused and complainant. Whereas the legal process is concerned with the rights and wellbeing of the accused, the university process is concerned wit the rights and wellbeing of both students equally. If one gets access to a lawyer, then both get access to a lawyer. If one doesn't get to cross examine directly than neither gets to cross examine directly.
The reason I don't buy the due process argument is that sexual assault is the only kind of rule violation that any one is up in arms about. No one cares when a student is found responsible for cheating, drugs, alcohol, theft, physical assault, etc. In those case there is even less due process, accused students aren't allowed to cross examine directly, indirectly, or at all.
You bring up that parents don't want to see their sons kicked out of school. That's part of the problem. Even if faced with overwhelming evidence, most parents will refuse to even entertain they idea that their child could do something like this. I've seen it first hand in the cases I've worked. I even had a conversation with my own parents when the Brock Turner case was going on where I asked them if I or my brother had done something like this would they stand by us. They answered without hesitation that they would and would never believe that we were capable of something like that. I don't have children, so I don't know what its like to be a parent, but even if its a bitter pill to swallow, I feel like we should want our sons and daughters to be held accountable when they make a mistake. Instead, most of what I see is parents fighting tooth and nail to get back at schools for holding their children accountable. Were some of them falsely accused or sanctioned too harshly? Absolutely, it's not a perfect system, no system is. Most of them did do exactly what they were accused of, but 99% of parents think that their child is one of the few.
-
No, it was the obvious condescension in your tone
You know what? You got me. You might not be the most outraged, but you're the #1 reporter on Scoop. You're likely our #1 moderation critic as well.
I believe you'd be happier using the ignore tool.
-
You know what? You got me. You might not be the most outraged, but you're the #1 reporter on Scoop. You're likely our #1 moderation critic as well.
I believe you'd be happier using the ignore tool.
Message Board Hall Monitor, time to update that LinkedIn profile.
-
You know what? You got me. You might not be the most outraged, but you're the #1 reporter on Scoop. You're likely our #1 moderation critic as well.
I believe you'd be happier using the ignore tool.
I repeat, this is not the hill I am gonna die on Topper, but it can you say in plain English, it's not okay for one for one poster to use sexually charged language against another posters' children.
-
You know what? You got me. You might not be the most outraged, but you're the #1 reporter on Scoop. You're likely our #1 moderation critic as well.
I believe you'd be happier using the ignore tool.
I'm not unhappy.
And yes, I use the tool, not just for discriminatory comments like Jay Bee, but for threads posted in the wrong forum, for duplicate threads that should be merged, and other basic moderation items for which the tool exists.
I use the tool on other forums as well. Because I've never viewed the simple act of reporting a post as criticism. It's just using the tools of the website to help the mods.
-
I'm not unhappy.
And yes, I use the tool, not just for discriminatory comments like Jay Bee, but for threads posted in the wrong forum, for duplicate threads that should be merged, and other basic moderation items for which the tool exists.
I use the tool on other forums as well. Because I've never viewed the simple act of reporting a post as criticism. It's just using the tools of the website to help the mods.
The mods are against the "report to moderator" tool. Hence, this thread. Maybe they'd be "happier" without it.
-
The mods are against the "report to moderator" tool. Hence, this thread. Maybe they'd be "happier" without it.
Beat me too it.
And they also should not get involved in these debates, IMHO. Just mod. You usually do it very well.
-
A college disciplinary board is not a court of law, and being privately punished or even expelled from school is not the same as losing one's freedom or a public criminal record.
Being expelled from school can have life consequences, you seem very matter of fact as if this is no big deal. It is a big deal, and should be a big deal. In some cases there are only a few schools in the country that have particular programs and if someone is booted, they may never be able to go to a school with that field of expertise to study again, breaking a life long dream.
It is dangerous and complex, but let us not sell the impacts short to those accused wrongfully.
-
First, I would challenge your use of pronouns a bit. While yes a majority of assaults are male against female, women can be the perpetrators and men can be the victim/survivors. I had a case just last week were we found a female student responsible for domestic violence against her boyfriend.
Most of them did do exactly what they were accused of, but 99% of parents think that their child is one of the few.
Yes, women can be accused of this, too.
I understand your last sentence, but I am talking about where this has happened and later found to be a wrongful accusation. Are the male students allowed back to school? Should they be? If I recall, several students have won lawsuits against schools in the last few years. Maybe this is their only recourse the get back their good name.
-
Yes, women can be accused of this, too.
I understand your last sentence, but I am talking about where this has happened and later found to be a wrongful accusation. Are the male students allowed back to school? Should they be? If I recall, several students have won lawsuits against schools in the last few years. Maybe this is their only recourse the get back their good name.
Yet to hear your opinion of people who use the term that is the title of thread, or posters who use sexually charged language about kids of others posters.
-
Being expelled from school can have life consequences, you seem very matter of fact as if this is no big deal. It is a big deal, and should be a big deal. In some cases there are only a few schools in the country that have particular programs and if someone is booted, they may never be able to go to a school with that field of expertise to study again, breaking a life long dream.
It is dangerous and complex, but let us not sell the impacts short to those accused wrongfully.
A couple of things.
1. Most students who are found responsible for sexual assault are not expelled.
2. In the grand scheme of things, its not that big of a deal. Students are able to enroll at another school instantly and continue their college careers if they so choose. Is it impactful? Absolutely. Does the impact even remotely compare to the possible sanctions in criminal and civil court? No, which is why the lower standard of evidence and due process is warranted. Also, civil court uses the same standard of evidence as the university process yet can dole out much harsher sanctions, why no outrage there?
3. I am unaware of any career or field of expertise that requires that a person go to a specific university. Maybe I'm wrong, if I am please point it out to me. It may not be at their university of choice but expelled students will be able to continue their studies in their desired field of study if they so choose.
Making the decision to expel a student is a significant one. It should only been done when the accused is going to be a threat to the safety of his/herself, others, or the academic environment of the college. That's why it is not used in most cases. You are right that it should be taken seriously, but let's not go the other direction and make it more than it actually is.
-
I understand your last sentence, but I am talking about where this has happened and later found to be a wrongful accusation. Are the male students allowed back to school? Should they be? If I recall, several students have won lawsuits against schools in the last few years. Maybe this is their only recourse the get back their good name.
To answer your questions, I would need examples. Can you please provide me with a time where a university expelled a student and then it was proven to be a false accusation? They have happened, but they are incredibly rare. Proven is the key word, btw.
And one side note about the "good name" comment you made. University disciplinary procedures are covered by FERPA, a federal privacy act. It would be a gross violation and fireable offense for a university to ever reveal that a student had been accused of sexual assault (or had accused someone of sexual assault). In most cases, no one outside the university ever knows that someone was accused (or found responsible) for sexual assault while at a university. The only way that information comes out is when there is a leak (in which case the leak should be fired and sued) or when the students involved choose to speak publicly about it which has nothing to do with the university. Provided no one breaks the law, the university process does not tarnish anyone's name in the slightest.
-
I'm not unhappy.
And yes, I use the tool, not just for discriminatory comments like Jay Bee, but for threads posted in the wrong forum, for duplicate threads that should be merged, and other basic moderation items for which the tool exists.
I use the tool on other forums as well. Because I've never viewed the simple act of reporting a post as criticism. It's just using the tools of the website to help the mods.
Which they have asked us in the past to use BTW.
-
To answer your questions, I would need examples. Can you please provide me with a time where a university expelled a student and then it was proven to be a false accusation? They have happened, but they are incredibly rare. Proven is the key word, btw.
And one side note about the "good name" comment you made. University disciplinary procedures are covered by FERPA, a federal privacy act. It would be a gross violation and fireable offense for a university to ever reveal that a student had been accused of sexual assault (or had accused someone of sexual assault). In most cases, no one outside the university ever knows that someone was accused (or found responsible) for sexual assault while at a university. The only way that information comes out is when there is a leak (in which case the leak should be fired and sued) or when the students involved choose to speak publicly about it which has nothing to do with the university. Provided no one breaks the law, the university process does not tarnish anyone's name in the slightest.
Dear "Mass Hysteria", "False Accusations", et al, Crowd,
You may wish to give up this line of inquiry as TAMU is kicking your asses with facts, and it ain't close.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ctpost.com/news/amp/Yovino-sentenced-to-1-year-in-false-rape-case-13177363.php
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ctpost.com/news/amp/Yovino-sentenced-to-1-year-in-false-rape-case-13177363.php
Correct. That was the recent case I was thinking of. There are others but they are few and far between. From what we know, Yovino is a terrible person and is being held accountable for her actions. This was only decided in the last few months. I tried to see if anyone knows what happened to the two football players. Based on what we know, I would hope the school would reverse its decision.
-
This thread has really taken a strange turn.
-
Being expelled from school can have life consequences, you seem very matter of fact as if this is no big deal. It is a big deal, and should be a big deal. In some cases there are only a few schools in the country that have particular programs and if someone is booted, they may never be able to go to a school with that field of expertise to study again, breaking a life long dream.
It is dangerous and complex, but let us not sell the impacts short to those accused wrongfully.
Oh, Chicos .... you asked why those involved in a student disciplinary hearing are not granted the same due process rights as those in the criminal system, such as the right to face one's accuser. The simple answer - whether you like it or not - is that the consequences of being found "guilty" by a student discipline board aren't nearly as severe or long-lasting as being found guilty in a courtroom. You're embarrassing yourself to suggest otherwise.
Yes, having to leave one school for another is a consequence and an inconvenience. No, it won't ruin a life long dream. Stop being so dramatic.
-
I repeat, this is not the hill I am gonna die on Topper, but it can you say in plain English, it's not okay for one for one poster to use sexually charged language against another posters' children.
But Sultan just said he doesn't have a daughter.
If someone said "I'd be down with sodomizing Baron Trump's son this weekend," would anyone seriously take that as a threat/insult?
-
But Sultan just said he doesn't have a daughter.
If someone said "I'd be down with sodomizing Baron Trump's son this weekend," would anyone seriously take that as a threat/insult?
I think the intentions of a poster to take it to that level, (I'm suspect JB knows the family makeup of sultan) speaks volumes. I think it's moot that Sultan doesn't have a daughter. To each their own, I guess.
-
I think the intentions of a poster to take it to that level, (I'm suspect JB knows the family makeup of sultan) speaks volumes.
Interesting. Up until now, the consensus of this thread was that intentions are irrelevant.
I think it's moot that Sultan doesn't have a daughter. To each their own, I guess.
There we are... back on track.
-
Correct. That was the recent case I was thinking of. There are others but they are few and far between. From what we know, Yovino is a terrible person and is being held accountable for her actions. This was only decided in the last few months. I tried to see if anyone knows what happened to the two football players. Based on what we know, I would hope the school would reverse its decision.
Of course they are "few and far between". It is virtually impossible to prove a negative.
-
Of course they are "few and far between". It is virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Who said anything about trying to prove a negative? We're talking about proving that a false allegation was made.
The point I'm making is this. I've found that people who are outraged by the due process in university sexual assault cases are often quick to turn around and then demand that accusers are held responsible for false allegations with no concern for their due process. It's yet another reason why the due process argument rings hollow to me. People aren't outraged by the due process, they are outraged that behavior they used to and may still consider acceptable is now considered a rules violation. But they know it's not appropriate to say that so they use due process as an avenue to push back.
-
Who said anything about trying to prove a negative? We're talking about proving that a false allegation was made.
??? Proving that a false allegation was made is the very definition of trying to prove a negative. Short of an airtight alibi or a Perry Mason breakdown by the accuser it's virtually impossible. That doesn't mean the allegations are true (or in some cases even reasonable). That's the reason that the accused always has the presumption of innocence - or did anyway.
-
Interesting. Up until now, the consensus of this thread was that intentions are irrelevant.
The intention of the poster couldn't be more crystal clear.
Have the debate if you want about what would be appropriate if a person "didn't mean it that way" and didn't intend it to be harmful, but that is simply not the case here. He knew exactly what he was doing, intended it to be a slur, did it repeatedly, then doubled down when called out on it.
-
??? Proving that a false allegation was made is the very definition of trying to prove a negative. Short of an airtight alibi or a Perry Mason breakdown by the accuser it's virtually impossible. That doesn't mean the allegations are true (or in some cases even reasonable). That's the reason that the accused always has the presumption of innocence - or did anyway.
Incorrect. Submitting a false report or false allegation is a crime. Proving that someone committed that crime is proving a positive. I'm not asking someone to prove that a sexual assault didn't happen, I am asking someone to prove that someone made a false allegation. And therein lies the point. Those who claim to be champions of due process often are interested in the due process of the other side. They are quick to claim false allegation with no proof or due process.
As for your little quip at the end. The accused has the presumption of innocence in a court of law (and in the university process as well). That is the only place that is owed. Public opinion is not beholden to that and never has been. Despite all the hand wringing on this topic, that fact has not changed. Burden of proof still rests with the prosecution/university.
-
Incorrect. Submitting a false report or false allegation is a crime. Proving that someone committed that crime is proving a positive. I'm not asking someone to prove that a sexual assault didn't happen, I am asking someone to prove that someone made a false allegation. And therein lies the point. Those who claim to be champions of due process often are interested in the due process of the other side. They are quick to claim false allegation with no proof or due process.
????????????? You're "not asking someone to prove that a sexual assault didn't happen" but you're "asking someone to prove that that someone made a false accusation". From the accused point of view those are exactly the same thing.
-
As for your little quip at the end. The accused has the presumption of innocence in a court of law (and in the university process as well). That is the only place that is owed. Public opinion is not beholden to that and never has been. Despite all the hand wringing on this topic, that fact has not changed. Burden of proof still rests with the prosecution/university.
You're absolutely right that public opinion is not beholden to evidence of any kind. Of course, to the extent that the opinion is an informed and unprejudiced one it should be.
-
????????????? You're "not asking someone to prove that a sexual assault didn't happen" but you're "asking someone to prove that that someone made a false accusation". From the accused point of view those are exactly the same thing.
No it is not. If someone accuses someone of a sexual assault, but the sexual assault didn't happen, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a false allegation in the legal sense. A false allegation requires that someone knowingly accuses someone of a crime they didn't commit. Most of the time when an accused is found innocent it is not because the allegation was false, it's because there was not enough evidence or because the parties had different understandings of whether or not consent was given.
You're absolutely right that public opinion is not beholden to evidence of any kind. Of course, to the extent that the opinion is an informed and unprejudiced one it should be.
You changed your argument here. We were talking about presuming innocence until proven guilt. That has nothing to do with evidence. Of course course informed and unprejudiced opinions are based on evidence. Couldn't agree more. But the public has no obligation to assume anyone innocent. In fact, presuming innocence would prove bias towards one side. In legal proceedings? Absolutely, bias is towards the accused is an absolute must. For an average Joe to have an opinion? Absolutely not.
-
????????????? You're "not asking someone to prove that a sexual assault didn't happen" but you're "asking someone to prove that that someone made a false accusation". From the accused point of view those are exactly the same thing.
In what legal or quasi-legal setting is the accused required to prove a sexual assault didn't happen?
-
In what legal or quasi-legal setting is the accused required to probe a sexual assault didn't happen?
Not only that, but yes, false allegations can be made and students may be kicked out of school. It happens. It also happens that students may be falsely accused of cheating, plagiarism, etc. And history shows that many people have been imprisoned due to false accusations only to be found to be innocent later.
So what we need to do is ensure that colleges and universities have the best procedures in place to investigate and judge these incidents. Just because someone has been falsely accused of something, that doesn't mean that no one who does the same thing can be investigated.
-
In what legal or quasi-legal setting is the accused required to probe a sexual assault didn't happen?
You may be on to something.... if we allowed probing of the accused, we'd probably decrease SA by 98%.
-
You may be on to something.... if we allowed probing of the accused, we'd probably decrease SA by 98%.
This thread needed a good laugh. Well done.
-
You may be on to something.... if we allowed probing of the accused, we'd probably decrease SA by 98%.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/1c058c772bbf76582dcf58d01916c8cf/tenor.gif?itemid=4730848)
-
Was it proved - REALLY PROVED - that Cosby did what he was charged doing?
How could the jury have known he committed the crime?
You look at all the evidence and you make a judgment, with these cases as in most others in which "proving" something is impossible.
-
Was it proved - REALLY PROVED - that Cosby did what he was charged doing?
How could the jury have known he committed the crime?
You look at all the evidence and you make a judgment, with these cases as in most others in which "proving" something is impossible.
Well, under oath in a civil case where he thought his testimony couldn't be used in a criminal case, he admitted it. So there's that.
-
Was it proved - REALLY PROVED - that Cosby did what he was charged doing?
How could the jury have known he committed the crime?
You look at all the evidence and you make a judgment, with these cases as in most others in which "proving" something is impossible.
If you want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt virtually no case from speeding to murder is REALLY PROVED.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is another kettle of fish. Cosby was (IMO) proven guilty under those conditions.
-
If you want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt virtually no case from speeding to murder is REALLY PROVED.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is another kettle of fish. Cosby was (IMO) proven guilty under those conditions.
Agreed, Lenny.
-
The simple answer - whether you like it or not - is that the consequences of being found "guilty" by a student discipline board aren't nearly as severe or long-lasting as being found guilty in a courtroom. You're embarrassing yourself to suggest otherwise.
Yes, having to leave one school for another is a consequence and an inconvenience. No, it won't ruin a life long dream. Stop being so dramatic.
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
-
For you dentists, you may have some interest in this. A Marquette dentist friend of mine sent this to me, he is retired in the Las Vegas area. Because Las Vegas has cameras everywhere, they were lucky.
These men were accused of rape, but video exonerated them. Without the video, their practice, their careers, their reputations, all potentially ruined along with their families.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/four-california-dentists-have-rape-charges-dropped-after-video-contradicts-womans-story
-
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
nm
-
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
Again, these proceedings are protected by privacy laws so unless someone breaks the law, no one's good name is tarnished. If someone does break the law, they need to be fired and sued.
Also again, most of the time students aren't expelled so they don't have to transfer. Even when they are, it is nothing compared to what civil and criminal courts can do to an accused. This is a fact. Unless you think getting expelled is comparable to jail time, being fined millions of dollars, and the death penalty.
There will always be people that think the person is guilty, just like there are those who will always think the person is innocent. Fortunately, 99% of the men and women who do this work aren't among those populations. The 1% who are need to be found out and fired. This is also true of the legal system.
-
Correct. That was the recent case I was thinking of. There are others but they are few and far between. From what we know, Yovino is a terrible person and is being held accountable for her actions. This was only decided in the last few months. I tried to see if anyone knows what happened to the two football players. Based on what we know, I would hope the school would reverse its decision.
But they won't, and thus their lives impacted greatly.
Colorado State, USC, Yale, Duke, Virginia, Brown, Allegheny College, Columbia. Chronicle of Higher Ed says over 100 lawsuits last 3 years. My wife said it best. Yes, women can lie, too, and they can be vicious. And men can be soul crushing inhuman creatures.
She's right in both classifications.
-
Again, these proceedings are protected by privacy laws so unless someone breaks the law, no one's good name is tarnished. If someone does break the law, they need to be fired and sued.
Also again, most of the time students aren't expelled so they don't have to transfer. Even when they are, it is nothing compared to what civil and criminal courts can do to an accused. This is a fact. Unless you think getting expelled is comparable to jail time, being fined millions of dollars, and the death penalty.
There will always be people that think the person is guilty, just like there are those who will always think the person is innocent. Fortunately, 99% of the men and women who do this work aren't among those populations. The 1% who are need to be found out and fired. This is also true of the legal system.
When John Doe is asked to leave, that isn't private. Students talk. The notion of privacy in this country is a myth.
-
For you dentists, you may have some interest in this. A Marquette dentist friend of mine sent this to me, he is retired in the Las Vegas area. Because Las Vegas has cameras everywhere, they were lucky.
These men were accused of rape, but video exonerated them. Without the video, their practice, their careers, their reputations, all potentially ruined along with their families.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/four-california-dentists-have-rape-charges-dropped-after-video-contradicts-womans-story
I'm not familiar with this case but I can almost guarantee that even without the video they would have been fine. It's nearly impossible to convict someone of sexual assault in this country without video evidence or direct witness testimony.
Also I'm curious, the article didn't say what the video showed. Do you know how the video exonerated them? Some times in these cases it's definitive proof that shows that the entire story was fabricated. Other times it's video that shows that the accuser was flirting and "acting slutty" so prosecutors decide not to go forward with the case because they know they won't be able to convince a jury it wasn't consensual.
-
But they won't, and thus their lives impacted greatly.
Colorado State, USC, Yale, Duke, Virginia, Brown, Allegheny College, Columbia. Chronicle of Higher Ed says over 100 lawsuits last 3 years. My wife said it best. Yes, women can lie, too, and they can be vicious. And men can be soul crushing inhuman creatures.
She's right in both classifications.
Huh, this sounds very similar to an argument that an old poster named Chicos used to make. Ever heard of him?
Over 100 lawsuits in the last three years. Let's give that the benefit of the doubt and say it's 199 because if it was 200 or more they would say over 200 the past three years.
There are at least 5,300 universities governed by Title IX meaning they have to take on these cases. Let's say these schools see an average of 10 cases per year (which is VERY generous, I see a couple hundred a year) that's 30 cases on average over the past three years. So 30 cases x 5,300 schools that is 159,000 cases heard by universities in the last three years. 199 lawsuits out of 159,000 is .00125%. So because aproximately .00125% of university cases have resulted in a lawsuit (not all of which were successful) you think universities are out control. You must hate the legal system then.
-
For you dentists, you may have some interest in this. A Marquette dentist friend of mine sent this to me, he is retired in the Las Vegas area. Because Las Vegas has cameras everywhere, they were lucky.
These men were accused of rape, but video exonerated them. Without the video, their practice, their careers, their reputations, all potentially ruined along with their families.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/four-california-dentists-have-rape-charges-dropped-after-video-contradicts-womans-story
All the dentists I know would never even think of such behavior.
-
When John Doe is asked to leave, that isn't private. Students talk. The notion of privacy in this country is a myth.
So because a couple of classmates might whisper that John/Jane Doe isn't here anymore I heard s/he got kicked out for sexual assault that their good name is tarnished and their life is ruined? Seriously? If that's the level of protection that you think people need than we might as well just not have any rules at all because that is ridiculous.
Also, students talk whether or not a report is made. Those same whispers happen even if the student is not found responsible or is even never accused. To try to a limit a university because some students might gossip about it is absurd.
And again, I work in this field. I have worked with hundreds of students who been accused. I can think of four who have had their names come out in the press. Three were because they had criminal cases and the information came from there. One because the accuser was not happy with our decision so the accuser put it all over social media which we can do nothing about because it is free speech.
-
All the dentists I know would never even think of such behavior.
I saw an episode of Seinfeld that would contradict your assertion. ;D
-
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
No kidding. WTF? Who said anything about not protecting the accused? TAMU even said it earlier - when the accused is "outed" its usually because they out themselves.
Chicos, you really don't know what you are talking about here.
-
No kidding. WTF? Who said anything about not protecting the accused? TAMU even said it earlier - when the accused is "outed" its usually because they out themselves.
Chicos, you really don't know what you are talking about here.
I believe chicos ignited almost this exact argument a couple years ago. I mean, practically word for word.
On another note, he always was very, very concerned about protecting whitey from injustice, too. Reverse racism, and all that.
But ... you know ... what's a chicos?
-
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
What's your solution, Chicos? Secret tribunals? A ban on victims from seeking redress unless the assault is captured on video?
Do you feel the same for accused murderers, thieves and batterers, or just guys accused of rape?
You're doing a fine job of complaining about the system, but offering zero ideas on how it can be improved.
Edit ...
Just to dive deeper into your thinking here, we know from numerous studies that the number of false allegations is tiny in comparison not only to valid accusations, but also to assaults that go unreported.
What you are arguing here is that the system needs to do more to protect guys from those rare false accusations, rather than do a better job of protecting victims and making sure perpetrators are appropriate;y punished, or at least removed from campus.
So, ultimately it seems you believe that it's far worse to be wrongly accused of rape - even in secret - than it is to actually be raped and then see your rapist stroll around on campus having gone entirely unpunished.
That's pretty messed up.
Not a single person here is claiming that false allegations are acceptable or should go unpunished. But it says a lot that we have a system in which a vast majority of assaults go either unreported or unpunished, but your sympathy lies with the guys who might have to leave campus because of an accusation.
-
What's your solution, Chicos? Secret tribunals? A ban on victims from seeking redress unless the assault is captured on video?
Do you feel the same for accused murderers, thieves and batterers, or just guys accused of rape?
You're doing a fine job of complaining about the system, but offering zero ideas on how it can be improved.
I pretty much wrote this exact thing in the post I edited to nm earlier. So +1
-
It is a sad day that tarnishing a person's reputation is met with such shrugs. It is more than simply having to transfer, which alone could be soul crushing to some students. There will always be people that think the person is guilty, unless the accuser comes out and forcefully denies it.
We have to do better as a country to protect both sides.
Yeah, you're right Chicos -- the plight of the oppressed white male is horrible. Who will think of them? Oh, that's right...
-
It's the same crew who think "reverse racism" (whatever that is) is worse than actual racism.
It would be funny if it weren't sad.
-
All the dentists I know would never even think of such behavior.
👍😂🤣🤣😂👍
Ok, but according to the dentists attorney, group sex did occur, but the video will show that it was consensual....??
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/four-dentists-accused-of-kidnapping-gang-raping-woman-at-las-vegas-hotel-released-without-bail/
It was probably their religion that gave it away-oh god oh god...yes yes oh god yes....
-
With regard to the Sacred Heart University football players that were expelled, they previously petitioned to be reinstated. This was before the false accuser took a guilty plea. Their petitions were denied.
They are presently suing the university and are represented by a good friend of my named Frank Riccio.
As an interesting aside, Frank previously defended former Major Leaguer Jose Offerman back in 2007 after Offerman was sued for a “bat attack” while playing independent baseball here in Connecticut. Offerman charged the mound after he took exception to a particular close pitch. The catcher tried to intervene and claimed he was hit by the bat. He claimed some pretty serious brain and neurological injuries.
If I remember correctly the jury gave the catcher close to a $1 million but his attorney (who had asked for something like $5 million) complained that it wasn’t enough.
I’ll see if I can dig up an article.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ctpost.com/local/amp/Ex-Bluefish-catcher-awarded-940k-in-bat-attack-5655225.php
-
Yeah, you're right Chicos -- the plight of the oppressed white male is horrible. Who will think of them? Oh, that's right...
Such a scary time to be a young man in this country. Never mind that it's always been a scary time to be a young woman around young men for far more legitimate reasons...
-
Such a scary time to be a young man in this country. Never mind that it's always been a scary time to be a young woman around young men for far more legitimate reasons...
I'd think even scarier was/is being a young woman around older men.
-
I'd think even scarier was/is being a young woman around older men.
Men in general. The comparative precautions list taken by men and women to prevent sexual assault is pretty staggering.
-
Yeah, you're right Chicos -- the plight of the oppressed white male is horrible. Who will think of them? Oh, that's right...
You like to inject race in some of your posts, which isn't appropriate.
The two young men at Sacred Heart accused wrongfully, were both African Americans. She was white. African Americans are wrongfully accused in this nation of many crimes, rape is no exception.
Brian Banks, remember him? Accused in high school when he was about to go on a full ride football scholarship. He lost five years of his life to prison until she admitted the whole thing was fabricated. Some teams in the NFL took a look at him last year. The man's life was ruined. Destroyed. His dreams, his ability to earn a high income living, a college degree. Ruined. He was African American.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blindsided-the-exoneration-of-brian-banks/
A few years ago here, Stanley Wrice was released. He spent 30 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. He was African American.
I've done some work with the Wisconsin Innocence Project, you may be interested in becoming involved. Their work helped overturn a 20 year prison term for Jarret Adams who was wrongfully accused.
I could go on. This isn't about race, despite you continually injecting it into some of your comments. This is about justice, for women and for men.
-
Such a scary time to be a young man in this country. Never mind that it's always been a scary time to be a young woman around young men for far more legitimate reasons...
You are doing what you rail against, putting an entire gender under rule of suspicion.
-
You like to inject race in some of your posts, which isn't appropriate.
The two young men at Sacred Heart accused wrongfully, were both African Americans. She was white. African Americans are wrongfully accused in this nation of many crimes, rape is no exception.
Brian Banks, remember him? Accused in high school when he was about to go on a full ride football scholarship. He lost five years of his life to prison until she admitted the whole thing was fabricated. Some teams in the NFL took a look at him last year. The man's life was ruined. Destroyed. His dreams, his ability to earn a high income living, a college degree. Ruined. He was African American.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blindsided-the-exoneration-of-brian-banks/
A few years ago here, Stanley Wrice was released. He spent 30 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. He was African American.
I've done some work with the Wisconsin Innocence Project, you may be interested in becoming involved. Their work helped overturn a 20 year prison term for Jarret Adams who was wrongfully accused.
I could go on. This isn't about race, despite you continually injecting it into some of your comments. This is about justice, for women and for men.
Uh...you are pretty much making his point. If a black guy is accused, he often winds up being found guilty.
To ignore the racial aspect of these things is pretty foolhardy.
-
You are doing what you rail against, putting an entire gender under rule of suspicion.
So, kind of what you're doing to every woman who says she was assaulted?
-
You like to inject race in some of your posts, which isn't appropriate.
I'm sorry, I'll use your preferred label: Traditional
-
Uh...you are pretty much making his point. If a black guy is accused, he often winds up being found guilty.
To ignore the racial aspect of these things is pretty foolhardy.
You said this before I could. Classic chicos!
-
I'd think even scarier was/is being a young woman around older men.
Misandristic and ageist. Abusers come in all ages and genders.
-
This just in (literally):
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article219358005.html?#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter&id=bWlrZW5hZGVsQHNiY2dsb2JhbC5uZXQ=
This guy, the brother of Panthers TE Greg Olsen, found innocent of rape.
Yes! A rich white male actually prevails! Huzzah!
So rare. Women get everything ... and what they don't get, blacks and Latinos do.
Seriously, I haven't followed this case closely enough to have formed an opinion on the justness of this verdict, so I'll defer to the 12-person jury. If he didn't rape her, I'm glad he was found innocent, obviously.
-
Innocent duzant meen he didn't due it. OJ was innocent two or rather "knot guilty," hey?
-
This just in (literally):
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article219358005.html?#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter&id=bWlrZW5hZGVsQHNiY2dsb2JhbC5uZXQ=
This guy, the brother of Panthers TE Greg Olsen, found innocent of rape.
Yes! A rich white male actually prevails! Huzzah!
So rare. Women get everything ... and what they don't get, blacks and Latinos do.
Seriously, I haven't followed this case closely enough to have formed an opinion on the justness of this verdict, so I'll defer to the 12-person jury. If he didn't rape her, I'm glad he was found innocent, obviously.
So does that make UNC the "white" university and UNC-Asheville & UNC-Greenboro the "black" and "Latino" universities?
-
So does that make UNC the "white" university and UNC-Asheville & UNC-Greenboro the "black" and "Latino" universities?
Benny, I have no idea what this means.
-
Benny, I have no idea what this means.
So you really didn’t follow the case but “ rich white male prevails!” ?
Kevin Olsen barely made it out of college as a “decent” qb. He obviously did not make it to the next level(nfl) that I’m aware of, and he’s a “rich white male”?? How much money does he have? In my estimation, Kevin Olsen is a 20 something male with some serious issues that need help. How, when or if he takes charge of his life to become a “rich white male” remains to be seen. He sure in the heck didn’t help his potential nfl aspirations, if he had any here.
If this was supposed to be “teal” or “tongue in cheek” I missed the joke-probably better to stick with your day job of retired sports writer
-
I'm sorry, I'll use your preferred label: Traditional
What does that even mean?
So, kind of what you're doing to every woman who says she was assaulted?
Absolutely not. I'm asking for evidence (witnesses, corroboration of some kind), not that you must believe a person no matter what, which is the current thinking by too many people.
Uh...you are pretty much making his point. If a black guy is accused, he often winds up being found guilty.
To ignore the racial aspect of these things is pretty foolhardy.
How? I am the one pointing that very thing. The examples I gave are of minorities found guilty by their schools, forced to leave, or in the case of Banks serve prison time for something they didn't do. I agree entirely that minority men are even more at risk of fake claims of sexual assault and it is wrong. How is that making his point when it is the same point I am making? I specifically said "African Americans are wrongfully accused in this nation of many crimes, rape is no exception."
This just in (literally):
This guy, the brother of Panthers TE Greg Olsen, found innocent of rape.
Did you see the Charlotte news as they tried to interview the jurors. Your claim of race that the white guy got off, take a look at the jurors as the three the reporter tried to talk to were all African American. I don't know the makeup of the entire jury, but why did you inject race again? Was your implication that a white jury got a white accused off?
Here is the video from the Charlotte tv station https://www.wcnc.com/video/news/local/jury-finds-ex-uncc-quarterback-kevin-olsen-not-guilty-on-all-rape-charges/275-8270524
-
What's your solution, Chicos? Secret tribunals? A ban on victims from seeking redress unless the assault is captured on video?
Do you feel the same for accused murderers, thieves and batterers, or just guys accused of rape?
You're doing a fine job of complaining about the system, but offering zero ideas on how it can be improved.
Edit ...
Just to dive deeper into your thinking here, we know from numerous studies that the number of false allegations is tiny in comparison not only to valid accusations, but also to assaults that go unreported.
What you are arguing here is that the system needs to do more to protect guys from those rare false accusations, rather than do a better job of protecting victims and making sure perpetrators are appropriate;y punished, or at least removed from campus.
So, ultimately it seems you believe that it's far worse to be wrongly accused of rape - even in secret - than it is to actually be raped and then see your rapist stroll around on campus having gone entirely unpunished.
That's pretty messed up.
Not a single person here is claiming that false allegations are acceptable or should go unpunished. But it says a lot that we have a system in which a vast majority of assaults go either unreported or unpunished, but your sympathy lies with the guys who might have to leave campus because of an accusation.
Numerous studies that show anywhere from 2% to 17%. I don't believe 17% is tiny. I don't believe 8% is tiny. When your life is on the line, I don't think 0.0000001% is tiny. It is also true that cases are not reported, this is equally troubling. Not less troubling.
I do not believe it is worse to be accused of rape falsely than to actually be raped, where did I say this? But if a rape didn't occur, and one is charged with that crime then it does become worse because one is accused of a crime they did not commit. As a father of both genders, I see the issue through both sides. The women in my family have provided great counsel to the men to remind them to treat women with respect, no is no, be careful of consent and what it means and where it stops. They have also said that some women can be vicious and lie, be careful. Weaponization is done by some.
Are you not familiar with the wise and old adage that it is better that 100 guilty people walk free than one innocent person found guilty?
This is an enormously difficult topic. I do not believe all women (or men) and reject the premise that one has to #believewomen only because they are women. That is against common sense, it is against legal norms that have been part of western civilization for 100's of years, and it defies humanity and the inherent evil that exists in all of us. I believe honest people (women or men), and I want to believe all women, but you don't get that because of your gender. Let me give you an example from the past 10 days where my BS meter goes off. In the news, we have all seen it. An accuser has many memory gaps, which may be true and I give her the benefit of the doubt. However, when one scrubs their entire social media history prior to going public, that is a tell. That is an attempt to remove motive. When that same person makes over $1M from go fund me accounts in 5 days and her attorneys are working pro bono, my mind would be a lot more at ease if that person said and proved that 100% of that is going to charity to avoid it looking like they were paid off for a political setup.
The Atlantic has a poignant article about this very thing yesterday, written by a woman who I am sure will take enormous heat for it.
Solutions for college? The accused should have right to counsel. The accused should be able to face his or her accuser directly.
-
The accused should be able to face his or her accuser directly.
Why?
-
Absolutely not. I'm asking for evidence (witnesses, corroboration of some kind), not that you must believe a person no matter what, which is the current thinking by too many people.
Not a single person means this to apply to police or campus conduct staff. Burden of proof is on the university and just the account of a complainant would be enough to find someone responsible for sexual assault.
Are you not familiar with the wise and old adage that it is better that 100 guilty people walk free than one innocent person found guilty?
This is true of the criminal system. Not the university one. The criminal system is a punitive one. The university system is an educational one. The mandate of universities is to protect the academic environment and the students within it.
Solutions for college? The accused should have right to counsel. The accused should be able to face his or her accuser directly.
Students are required to have access to counsel. This is a made up argument.
Accused are entitled to any information given by their accuser and can address it directly. Why is it so important that they need directly face them?
-
Students are required to have access to counsel. This is a made up argument.
#FakeNews
#Lies
You’re fibbin
-
#FakeNews
#Lies
You’re fibbin
You're right. The Trump administration rescinded the guidelines that required universities grant students access to an adviser of their choice, including attorneys. So technically, a university doesn't have to allow a student access to counsel at this moment.
Now assuming that a university is sticking to the Obama era guidelines until new guidelines are issued (which is what most are doing), a student must be allowed to have an attorney (or other adviser of their choice) present to advise them during the conduct process.
As you often remind people with NCAA rules, go actually read the rules before trying to speak on them. Media often get things wrong.
-
You're right. The Trump administration rescinded the guidelines that required universities grant students access to an adviser of their choice, including attorneys. So technically, a university doesn't have to allow a student access to counsel at this moment.
Now assuming that a university is sticking to the Obama era guidelines until new guidelines are issued (which is what most are doing), a student must be allowed to have an attorney (or other adviser of their choice) present to advise them during the conduct process.
As you often remind people with NCAA rules, go actually read the rules before trying to speak on them. Media often get things wrong.
Say what? I corrected you and you agreed with my correction. Why are you telling me to “read the rules”?
You were wrong and admitted it. It’ll be OK!
-
Say what? I corrected you and you agreed with my correction. Why are you telling me to “read the rules”?
You were wrong and admitted it. It’ll be OK!
Yes. I'm totally sure that's what you meant.
You do still need to read the rules. Just because there is no overarching guidance, doesn't mean that universities don't have rules that require that students have access to attorneys....which 99% of schools have. Other than the 4 universities not governed by Title IX (completely donation funded, don't accept fafsa) I am personally not aware of any university that doesn't have these rules. Could be a few universities rescinded them after DeVos rescinded the guidance but I would guess the number is in the single digits.
-
Also, this question with attorneys is yet another example of how students accused of sexual assault enjoy more due process than students accused of any other violation. Students accused of cheating, alcohol, physical assault, theft, etc aren't allowed to have attorneys as advisers. Yet, no outrage there.
-
@Tamu
The way I understand it is that an accusation is enough to get the accused suspended, expelled, or forced schedule change to interrupt there school year. No proof or investigation is necessary. Is this correct?
-
Yes. I'm totally sure that's what you meant.
You do still need to read the rules. Just because there is no overarching guidance, doesn't mean that universities don't have rules that require that students have access to attorneys....which 99% of schools have. Other than the 4 universities not governed by Title IX (completely donation funded, don't accept fafsa) I am personally not aware of any university that doesn't have these rules. Could be a few universities rescinded them after DeVos rescinded the guidance but I would guess the number is in the single digits.
Many of the “99%” (lol) horribly restrict what the attorneys can and can’t do. Your claim was wrong and an affront to humanity!!!!
-
@Tamu
The way I understand it is that an accusation is enough to get the accused suspended, expelled, or forced schedule change to interrupt there school year. No proof or investigation is necessary. Is this correct?
Suspended: Wildly incorrect
Expelled: Wildly incorrect
Forced Schedule Change: Correct but rare
It is standard procedure for a "no contact order" to be placed between the accused and accuser. Think of it as a restraining order. If the accused and accuser share a class or live in the same dorm then one of the two will need to be moved. Universities are required to move the student into another section of the class and are supposed to move the student who it will have the least impact on. If they have to move out of a dorm, it is almost always the accused that has to move temporarily. This may seem harsh, but keep in mind that restraining orders in the legal process require minimal evidence and investigation and it is almost always the accused that is forced to move.
Suspension/Expulsion requires investigation, a conduct panel, and opportunity for appeal. Burden of proof rests with the university. As I mentioned earlier, most students found responsible for sexual assault are not expelled, that is usually reserved for students who are considered to be true predators who are likely to reoffend. Suspension is the most common sanction. Probation is more common than expulsion.
Again, all of this is assuming that the university is still following the Obama era guidelines. There are currently no guidelines as DeVos rescinded all of them with no replacements.
-
What does that even mean?
Gosh, Chicos, who could ever possibly know?
-
Many of the “99%” (lol) horribly restrict what the attorneys can and can’t do. Your claim was wrong and an affront to humanity!!!!
My claim was not wrong. I said students have access to counsel. Which is 100% true. Attorneys cannot speak for the student. They however can tell them exactly what to say and have the student parrot it word for word. They can even write them a script and have them read from it. They can even do this when answering questions. Not even the legal system allows that! I know its a lot to ask, to actually have students use their voice in a conduct panels.
-
My claim was not wrong. I said students have access to counsel. Which is 100% true. Attorneys cannot speak for the student. They however can tell them exactly what to say and have the student parrot it word for word. They can even write them a script and have them read from it. They can even do this when answering questions. Not even the legal system allows that! I know its a lot to ask, to actually have students use their voice in a conduct panels.
Lies!
-
Lies!
Sigh.
Do I really need to put *assuming the school is still following the obama era guidelines until new guidelines are issued* in every post? Can we just assume that's implied moving forward?
-
Typical Scoop thread.
One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.
Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.
-
I’m going out on a limb on this on with.....
In before the lock!
-
Typical Scoop thread.
One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.
Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.
I don't think anyone has insulted me. There is some misinformation and obviously some don't have any interest in learning or hearing anything other than their own opinion but that's fine. I'm glad for the opportunity for discussion. It makes me better at my job honestly. It's good for me to know what perceptions and misinformation is out there so I can address it in my training. People are more likely to open about these things on an anonymous internet forum than when attending a title ix training at their place of employment.
-
Typical Scoop thread.
One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.
Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.
With all due respect to TAMU with regards to this topic specifically, I trust he knows more than I and many others about this issue. Just as I’d like to think 4ever and I would know more about oral issues. The fact that someone may question another is good as long as it’s respectful and constructive. Debating an issue is good stuff and I think most of us are able to make our own decisions on who and or what is the most plausible. But, according to Brandi in his never ending attempts to suck up, eveyone who disagrees with his opinion should just shut up. Now what does that sound like?? 🤷🏼♂️
-
With all due respect to TAMU with regards to this topic specifically, I trust he knows more than I and many others about this issue. Just as I’d like to think 4ever and I would know more about oral issues. The fact that someone may question another is good as long as it’s respectful and constructive. Debating an issue is good stuff and I think most of us are able to make our own decisions on who and or what is the most plausible. But, according to Brandi in his never ending attempts to suck up, eveyone who disagrees with his opinion should just shut up. Now what does that sound like?? 🤷🏼♂️
(https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/snickering-gif-8.gif)
-
Yeah Man, proud ta sey I got loads of experience wit those, hey?
-
@TAMU
Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.
I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.
-
@TAMU
Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.
I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.
Many examples of this. For whatever reasons, TAMU is lying.
-
So you really didn’t follow the case but “ rich white male prevails!” ?
Kevin Olsen barely made it out of college as a “decent” qb. He obviously did not make it to the next level(nfl) that I’m aware of, and he’s a “rich white male”??
His brother Greg is an All-Pro tight end who has made tens of millions of dollars during his career, and he is directly involved in every step of Kevin's life. Greg was in the courtroom just about every day, and he bankrolled the best attorneys money could buy to defend his brother.
So yes, Kevin Olsen is a rich, white male.
A poor person would not have been able to afford that kind of defense, and very well might have been found guilty because of it -- one of many reasons our prisons are filled non-Caucasians.
-
@TAMU
Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.
I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.
Please do. Keep in mind that media often get things wrong and the only source they often have is the accused student who is of course going to say the process is a sham. Universities are bound by privacy laws and can't offer a defense.
Also keep in mind that like any other system, there are bad actors. There have been and are biased university conduct professionals. There have been universities that have violated the guidance. These individuals have been biased both ways, some benefitting the accused, some benefitting the accuser. These individuals need to be found out and held accountable. Just like biased and corrupt judges, DAs, jurors, etc need to be found out and held accountable.
-
Many examples of this. For whatever reasons, TAMU is lying.
Go read the rules from the Obama era guidance. Find me the one that says lawyers are banned from being advisors.
I'll wait
-
Please do. Keep in mind that media often get things wrong and the only source they often have is the accused student who is of course going to say the process is a sham. Universities are bound by privacy laws and can't offer a defense.
Herd da very same thing just dis mornin' 'bout another matta, hey?
-
Herd da very same thing just dis mornin' 'bout another matta, hey?
What matter?
-
Go read the rules from the Obama era guidance. Find me the one that says lawyers are banned from being advisors.
I'll wait
Lol “Obama era GUIDANCE”
You’re so off on this one, bud.
Anyway, fun read...
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-student-right-to-counsel
-
Lol “Obama era GUIDANCE”
You’re so off on this one, bud.
Anyway, fun read...
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-student-right-to-counsel
1. Those aren't the rules, that's an article with two peoples opinions on the rules.
2. That article supports what I said. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but they aren't allowed to speak for the student. They are allowed to directly advise the student.
3. The article does give an example from Notre Dame after the guidelines were rescinded with what I would call unreasonable and formerly illegal restrictions on the advisor. Assuming the facts are correct I would agree that school needs to change.
-
1. Those aren't the rules, that's an article with two peoples opinions on the rules.
2. That article supports what I said. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but they aren't allowed to speak for the student. They are allowed to directly advise the student.
Thank you for supporting what I've been saying.
Try, try again if you wish, but U LYIN
-
There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.
https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role
“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers. The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses. A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer. The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”
-
Try, try again if you wish, but U LYIN
I edited to address one particular example that occurred after the guidance was recinded which I agree is problematic. Another reason why rescinding the guidance with no replacement was a terrible idea.
The article also keeps making the argument that this should be treated as a criminal case. It's not. These are student rule violations.
-
There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.
https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role
“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers. The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses. A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer. The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”
I don't have a dog in this fight, but how exactly would this work? Your adviser can be an attorney and consult with you, but can't act as an attorney? So can your attorney/adviser tell you exactly what to say as long as they don't directly address the Board or witnesses?
-
Stop the lies! If it’s a student code violation, YOUR OWN SCHOOL doesn’t permit an attorney to be PRESENT.
How are you so confused here? It must be me. What am I misunderstanding?
https://studentlife.tamu.edu/sco/faq/accused/
Can I have someone with me during my student conduct conference?
Students are permitted to have one advisor present with them during their student conduct conference. Students that are charged in the same incident or who are "not in good standing" with the University may not serve as an advisor for the accused student. Additionally, the advisor may not be an attorney unless the accused student is also the subject of a pending criminal matter arising out of the same circumstances.
-
I edited to address one particular example that occurred after the guidance was recinded which I agree is problematic. Another reason why rescinding the guidance with no replacement was a terrible idea.
The article also keeps making the argument that this should be treated as a criminal case. It's not. These are student rule violations.
TAMU, can you speak to the intent of prohibiting representation? It is to prevent universities from needing to bring in (and pay for) their own counsel? I can understand that for underage drinking tickets and plagiarism, but for serious disciplinary proceedings where there may also be criminal charges, assuming that the university proceeding record is admissible in a criminal court proceeding, doesn't that discourage the accused from participating at the university level?
-
I don't think anyone has insulted me.
JayBee has called you a liar numerous times in this thread.
-
JayBee has called you a liar numerous times in this thread.
That’s not my username and it’s not an insult - it’s fact.
-
Stop the lies! If it’s a student code violation, YOUR OWN SCHOOL doesn’t permit an attorney to be PRESENT.
How are you so confused here? It must be me. What am I misunderstanding?
https://studentlife.tamu.edu/sco/faq/accused/
Can I have someone with me during my student conduct conference?
Students are permitted to have one advisor present with them during their student conduct conference. Students that are charged in the same incident or who are "not in good standing" with the University may not serve as an advisor for the accused student. Additionally, the advisor may not be an attorney unless the accused student is also the subject of a pending criminal matter arising out of the same circumstances.
You are mistaken. You found the rules for students accused of non-Title IX related rule violations. We have a separate process (with more due process!) for those accused of Title IX related rule violations.
https://student-rules.tamu.edu/rule47/
Throughout the process, complainants and accused students may have an advisor of their choice present at any meeting related to the investigation, conduct process, and appeal. An advisor of choice may include an attorney at the student’s own expense.
Don't worry, I won't call you a liar. I know you just made a mistake.
-
There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.
https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role
“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers. The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses. A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer. The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”
Once again, you have provided an example that illustrates what I am talking about. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but advisors can only address their advisee.
-
Once again, you have provided an example that illustrates what I am talking about. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but advisors can only address their advisee.
TAMU’s 26.2.3.1, etc. - maybe this is where we disagree. I see this as saying you can NOT have someone acting as an attorney.
You can have an advisor, but not acting as an attorney.
To me, that’s saying you’re not allowed to use an attorney as an attorney.
-
TAMU, can you speak to the intent of prohibiting representation? It is to prevent universities from needing to bring in (and pay for) their own counsel? I can understand that for underage drinking tickets and plagiarism, but for serious disciplinary proceedings where there may also be criminal charges, assuming that the university proceeding record is admissible in a criminal court proceeding, doesn't that discourage the accused from participating at the university level?
You would have to ask the creators of the guidance for their true intent, but the most common interpretation is that this is not a legal process, it is an educational one. The sanctions applied are not meant to be punitive but to help responsible students learn from their mistakes, as well as protect the academic environment of all students. Having a student stay silent while an attorney does all the speaking for him/her goes against the goal.
Also, the focus is always on the accused not being represented by an attorney, but keep in mind that universities are mandated to a doctrine of equality. Accusers are bound by the same rules so it is an equal playing field. The legal system is meant to give every advantage to the accused. The university system is meant to give the accuser and accused equal footing. The university still has the disadvantage of having the burden of proof.
The last point you bring up is a very good one. Conduct proceedings can be subpoenaed and entered in as evidence in criminal court. We see this with drug cases very commonly. The accused will come in and answer every question with some form of "on the advice of my attorney, I am not answering any questions at this time." The panel is then left to make a decision based on the investigation, police report, and any other evidence or testimony that is presented. Accused students often sacrifice their conduct case to help their criminal one.
This is not as common with Title IX cases. In the hundreds that I have had a role in, less than 3 dozen have had corresponding criminal cases and almost all of those were domestic violence cases, not sexual assault. I can think of six sexual assault cases off the top of my head that had a corresponding criminal case. All 6 never made it to trial, 1 took a plea for indecent exposure and the other 5 were dismissed for lack of evidence. In most states, what counts as sexual assault in Title IX does not match what counts as sexual assault in state law, so most of our cases can't be brought in criminal court. The ones that can usually don't have enough evidence to prove. It's a sad reality that it is almost impossible to get convicted for sexual assault in most states unless it was filmed, there was a witness in the room, the accused confesses, extreme violence was used, or if the victim was underage. Now, when someone's freedom is on the line, that's the level of evidence required, but it is unfortunate that so many can't get justice through the courts.
All that being said, I absolutely understand why when there is a criminal case pending why it could discourage the accused from participating. I have yet to have a sexual assault case where it happened, but I could see it happening. That is why I think attorneys absolutely need to be allowed to be present and advise their clients.
-
TAMU’s 26.2.3.1, etc. - maybe this is where we disagree. I see this as saying you can NOT have someone acting as an attorney.
You can have an advisor, but not acting as an attorney.
To me, that’s saying you’re not allowed to use an attorney as an attorney.
Gotcha. What that is saying is that your advisor cannot act as an attorney. S/he cannot question witnesses, they cannot address the panel or other university administrators, they cannot speak for a student. What an advisor can do is be present for all meetings and give advice/guidance directly to their client. If they so choose, the attorney can literally tell them what to say verbatim and then the student can parrot it back to the panel. And yes, your advisor can be an attorney by profession.
-
Funny how JB was silent for so long in this thread until it changed topics.
-
Funny how JB was silent for so long in this thread until it changed topics.
I was silent because I was banned, pal.
Some of you create a fantasy land in your own minds... bizarre.
PS - the t-bones were delicious
-
All that being said, I absolutely understand why when there is a criminal case pending why it could discourage the accused from participating. I have yet to have a sexual assault case where it happened, but I could see it happening. That is why I think attorneys absolutely need to be allowed to be present and advise their clients.
Would be interested in the background/intent/arguments for an against.
I think we're in agreement on this: in a sexual misconduct student code case at TAMU and many other universities, the accused is NOT allowed to be legally represented. An attorney cannot advocate for the accused.
Thanks for bearing with my ranting earlier.
-
Would be interested in the background/intent/arguments for an against.
I think we're in agreement on this: in a sexual misconduct student code case at TAMU and many other universities, the accused is NOT allowed to be legally represented. An attorney cannot advocate for the accused.
Thanks for bearing with my ranting earlier.
If that's your apology for repeatedly calling him a liar, you're quite the coward.
-
If that's your apology for repeatedly calling him a liar, you're quite the coward.
Don't worry, that was not an apology for the 'liar' comment - that stands. My apology was for adding too much yapping to my issue.
That is, TAMU said that the accused were required to have access to counsel. To me, he was inferring legal counsel, e.g., an attorney. Attorneys represent. That is not the case.
Bill Self used to come to travel games during non-evaluation times. Coaches were not allowed to attend these events. He was allowed because his son was playing, but he was not allowed to be a coach evaluating there. He was allowed in the capacity of being another dude in the stands, watching his kid play bball. So, was his a coach physically there? Sure. So was he allowed to evaluate? Nah.
The accused cannot have legal counsel do what legal counsel does in a student case. So... do they have access to legal counsel? No, but I believe TAMU was inferring otherwise.
Might be my misread; both probably could have done better to explain.
But thank you for your valued opinion. It means a lot.
#TheRighteousHypocrites
-
His brother Greg is an All-Pro tight end who has made tens of millions of dollars during his career, and he is directly involved in every step of Kevin's life. Greg was in the courtroom just about every day, and he bankrolled the best attorneys money could buy to defend his brother.
So yes, Kevin Olsen is a rich, white male.
A poor person would not have been able to afford that kind of defense, and very well might have been found guilty because of it -- one of many reasons our prisons are filled non-Caucasians.
So Greg told you that he paid for bro kevin’s Attorney(s) and regularly gives him money to push him into “rich white guy” tax bracket...well well well, why didncha say so in the first place. You and Greg must be tight, eyn’a?
Ho boy, your next comment is a doooozy. Don’t think it would be prudent to dignify that bute. Your guys are just licking their chops and sharpening their swords😳
-
Don't worry, that was not an apology for the 'liar' comment - that stands. My apology was for adding too much yapping to my issue.
That is, TAMU said that the accused were required to have access to counsel. To me, he was inferring legal counsel, e.g., an attorney. Attorneys represent. That is not the case.
Well to me that is not how I took his comment. So you calling him a liar is not true. You realize counsel does not always have to be legal counsel, right? So you put words in his mouth based on your perception and then called him a liar. You have to see how you are being a jag here yet again, right?
-
@TAMU
Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.
I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.
You might have it backwards. Rice is pretty protective of the accused.
-
So Greg told you that he paid for bro kevin’s Attorney(s) and regularly gives him money to push him into “rich white guy” tax bracket...well well well, why didncha say so in the first place. You and Greg must be tight, eyn’a?
Ho boy, your next comment is a doooozy. Don’t think it would be prudent to dignify that bute. Your guys are just licking their chops and sharpening their swords😳
You're a piece of work, rocket.
-
You're a piece of work, rocket.
That was a c**k high hanging uncle Charlie man, but thank you
-
That was a c**k high hanging uncle Charlie man, but thank you
Huh? 90% of your posts are indecipherable.
-
Y kant wee all bee friends, hey?