seems like MU is all for diversity of thought, except...if there is more to this story, i'm all ears.
https://wiba.iheart.com/content/2020-06-29-marquette-university-is-attacking-a-student-for-her-conservative-beliefs/
I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...
I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.
Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.
Look if you're against gay marriage it's a homophobic stance. If you're against a person identifying as a different gender and starting that process then it's an anti trans stance. You might not like being called those words because you don't have anything against them as people and just want them to be happy in their bubble you've set for them but the views themselves are against them.
That's what this girl is complaining about, she wants to not have a trough be called a trough but still do everything a trough does.
I'm assuming neither of us have watched her to know if she actually has incited violence but the interviewer is clearly asking leading questions so I'm inclined to believe there's more to the story.
As another note listening to something called the conservative inquisition is only confirming your already held belief that your beliefs are under attack and being removed despite holding majorities in the senate, Supreme Court, and the presidency. I mean stop playing a victim.
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 30, 2020, 09:25:30 AM
I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...
I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.
Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.
+1
Yeah read McAdams blog and listened to this. The way she was called out on social media by others, many (most?) of whom aren't even associated with the University is wrong. But Marquette isn't "attacking her for her conservative beliefs." FFS, that's just clickbait.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 30, 2020, 09:15:37 AM
seems like MU is all for diversity of thought, except...if there is more to this story, i'm all ears.
https://wiba.iheart.com/content/2020-06-29-marquette-university-is-attacking-a-student-for-her-conservative-beliefs/
Everyone is entitled to express their views. And everyone else is entitled to say "those views suck."
It's terrible and wrong if anyone is bullying this girl, and very lame that some took it to Marquette, but it seems the thrust of this kerfuffle is that she's mad that people are calling her out. Boo and hoo.
At this point, it doesn't seem the university has taken any action against her.
Is there a link to an article about this somewhere? I am unfamiliar with the topic. Thanks. When I saw McAdams, I thought it was going to be about this.
https://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2020, 09:36:13 AM
Everyone is entitled to express their views. And everyone else is entitled to say "those views suck."
It's terrible and wrong if anyone is bullying this girl, and very lame that some took it to Marquette, but it seems the thrust of this kerfuffle is that she's mad that people are calling her out. Boo and hoo.
At this point, it doesn't seem the university has taken any action against her.
they hope she gets "shot and/or "run over by a semi" hope these aren't potential future MU students. if MU got word of who those students were, would they call them out?
ya know, we all hear opposition view points all the time and the last thing i'm thinking is, boy, i've got to find this person and send them a nice juicy piece of "love". what's wrong with people? then, to actually write the university to complain? they fear for their safety? MU actually called her in to give her a "morality test"? is this common with all incoming students?
Quote from: Galway Eagle on June 30, 2020, 09:27:07 AM
Look if you're against gay marriage it's a homophobic stance. If you're against a person identifying as a different gender and starting that process then it's an anti trans stance. You might not like being called those words because you don't have anything against them as people and just want them to be happy in their bubble you've set for them but the views themselves are against them.
That's what this girl is complaining about, she wants to not have a spade be called a spade but still do everything a spade does.
I'm assuming neither of us have watched her to know if she actually has incited violence but the interviewer is clearly asking leading questions so I'm inclined to believe there's more to the story.
As another note listening to something called the conservative inquisition is only confirming your already held belief that your beliefs are under attack and being removed despite holding majorities in the senate, Supreme Court, and the presidency. I mean stop playing a victim.
If you are against gay marriage in the context of a government recognized entity, yes. If you are against your religion recognizing a gay marriage I don't see how that is homophobic. There are lots of lifestyles you can be morally opposed to but as long as you extend all the same rights, privileges, and respect to those individuals you aren't being "whatever-phobic".
For the record, I have no idea what stance this young lady is taking and no idea yet if MU's position on it is consistent, good or bad, whatever. However, I would be really careful about shutting down any kind of speech.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 10:10:14 AM
If you are against gay marriage in the context of a government recognized entity, yes. If you are against your religion recognizing a gay marriage I don't see how that is homophobic. There are lots of lifestyles you can be morally opposed to but as long as you extend all the same rights, privileges, and respect to those individuals you aren't being "whatever-phobic".
You are correct, I should have been more specific. For the record I'm against anybody trying to force a religion to bend to its knee and am adamantly pro separation of church and state and believe it goes both ways and that ministers should have no say in political matters. So as you put it, you can be morally opposed to it but if you're voting against it or trying to overturn it then that is homophobic.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 10:10:14 AM
For the record, I have no idea what stance this young lady is taking and no idea yet if MU's position on it is consistent, good or bad, whatever. However, I would be really careful about shutting down any kind of speech.
Agree which is again why I think we need someone young to report back about these videos. If she was reiterating the pro violence toward the protestors approach that the POTUS tweeted about then yes MU was correct stating her videos put peoples lives in danger. If she's just stating she's against socialized tuition, social healthcare, abortion (from a non religious perspective), tightening immigration, pro guns, etc then those are just conservative beliefs she has the right to talk about.
Quote from: shoothoops on June 30, 2020, 09:44:01 AM
Is there a link to an article about this somewhere? I am unfamiliar with the topic.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2020/06/marquette-threatens-to-cancel.html
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 30, 2020, 09:25:30 AM
I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...
I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.
Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.
You're listening to a conservative talk radio show. There is obviously more to it than what is being presented. How else would they be able to sell the outrage?
Responding to these types of situations for TAMU is one of my job responsibilities. A few things I noticed:
1. If current MU students are sending death threats to Samantha, Marquette can and should look into holding them accountable. Its possible they already are, its also possible that the death threats are from people who are not currently MU students or employees which means there is nothing MU can do. In my experience, usually threats of violence are coming from people with no affiliation to the university.
2. The whole outrage over "they contacted the reporter three days before talking to Samantha" is ridiculous. When a school receives an allegation of discriminatory/harassing behavior by a student they will of course respond right away to the reporter to let them know that they received the allegation and will look into it. That's not a promise to punish the respondent, just an acknowledgement that they received the allegation. The school will then look into the allegation to see if there is any merit to it and decide how they want to proceed. Three days is a reasonable amount of time for that to occur in.
3. They give very vanilla descriptions of what Samantha posted. I'd be curious what she actually said to spark that level of hate. Especially that whole thing about "they found a comment from three years ago." Usually when things like this get brought to me at TAMU, the respondent said a lot more than "I support Donald Trump." To be clear, no matter what she said, death threats and bullying are not warranted. But maybe reporting her to the school was.
4. I don't know what the purpose of the Dean meeting with her was. I suspect that it wasn't any sort of disciplinary conversation. It was likely educational in nature and an attempt to get her to reflect on the impact that her social media posts could have. That's how I've handled similar cases when someone may have crossed the line into hate speech. The goal isn't to punish or to get them to change their beliefs but rather get them to reflect on how they may have impacted others and how their words could impact their future given the permanence of the internet. I would never recommend rescinding an admission offer for free speech, no matter how hateful. That being said, I work for a public institution and MU is private, they have more leeway than I do. Still, my guess is that her admission offer is not and was never in jeopardy.
5. Her main complaint doesn't seem to be about the university but rather about how people (some of whom are MU students) have treated her online. Again, death threats and bullying is not an appropriate response to free speech, no matter how hateful. But someone calling her racist or hateful or homophobic is just as much free speech as whatever she posted initially. She has every right to free speech and her critics have every right to use their free speech to criticize her free speech. God bless the first amendment.
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 30, 2020, 10:26:14 AM
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2020/06/marquette-threatens-to-cancel.html
Out of curiosity, when you read the title of that blog post, do you see what is inherently wrong with it?
As is often the case, TAMU nails it.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on June 30, 2020, 10:29:39 AM
Out of curiosity, when you read the title of that blog post, do you see what is inherently wrong with it?
He asked for a link and I responded. I didn't say it was gospel.
I think you're looking for an argument with someone largely on your side here.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 30, 2020, 10:27:20 AM
Responding to these types of situations for TAMU is one of my job responsibilities. A few things I noticed:
1. If current MU students are sending death threats to Samantha, Marquette can and should look into holding them accountable. Its possible they already are, its also possible that the death threats are from people who are not currently MU students or employees which means there is nothing MU can do. In my experience, usually threats of violence are coming from people with no affiliation to the university.
2. The whole outrage over "they contacted the reporter three days before talking to Samantha" is ridiculous. When a school receives an allegation of discriminatory/harassing behavior by a student they will of course respond right away to the reporter to let them know that they received the allegation and will look into it. That's not a promise to punish the respondent, just an acknowledgement that they received the allegation. The school will then look into the allegation to see if there is any merit to it and decide how they want to proceed. Three days is a reasonable amount of time for that to occur in.
3. They give very vanilla descriptions of what Samantha posted. I'd be curious what she actually said to spark that level of hate. Especially that whole thing about "they found a comment from three years ago." Usually when things like this get brought to me at TAMU, the respondent said a lot more than "I support Donald Trump." To be clear, no matter what she said, death threats and bullying are not warranted. But maybe reporting her to the school was.
4. I don't know what the purpose of the Dean meeting with her was. I suspect that it wasn't any sort of disciplinary conversation. It was likely educational in nature and an attempt to get her to reflect on the impact that her social media posts could have. That's how I've handled similar cases when someone may have crossed the line into hate speech. The goal isn't to punish or to get them to change their beliefs but rather get them to reflect on how they may have impacted others and how their words could impact their future given the permanence of the internet. I would never recommend rescinding an admission offer for free speech, no matter how hateful. That being said, I work for a public institution and MU is private, they have more leeway than I do. Still, my guess is that her admission offer is not and was never in jeopardy.
5. Her main complaint doesn't seem to be about the university but rather about how people (some of whom are MU students) have treated her online. Again, death threats and bullying is not an appropriate response to free speech, no matter how hateful. But someone calling her racist or hateful or homophobic is just as much free speech as whatever she posted initially. She has every right to free speech and her critics have every right to use their free speech to criticize her free speech. God bless the first amendment.
Pack it up, guys. Professionals have weighed in.
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 30, 2020, 10:31:56 AM
He asked for a link and I responded. I didn't say it was gospel.
I think you're looking for an argument with someone largely on your side here.
I'm not trying to look for an argument, but that link is pretty yikes. It's a blog with a lot of missing information. ;)
On-line bullying and threats of violence is wrong. Using your first amendment rights to comment on how someone else uses their first amendment rights is fine. We do it here all the time. Like it or not, people judge everything that gets posted. MU82 had been judged. Chicos, rocket, Ners, me, TAMU, .... it doesn't matter. You are entitled to your opinion. And others are entitled to judge and comment on that opinion when posted.
If you don't want to be called racist, homophobic, etc, don't post racist or homophobic things. If you hate being called a liar, quit lying. If you think the most important thing is for you to get your opinion out there, live with the consequences.
Let me know when there is something detailed, specific, decently objective that I can read, listen to or watch when that happens. I can't really comment until I have a more complete understanding (or any understanding) about this topic. 👍
TAMU, spot on.
One additional detail. McAdams and the radio reporter go to great length not to mention "Samantha's" real name for fear of bringing more vitriol against her.
But they openly share the person's, who reported her, name and social media handle. Again showing that his/their real goal is to bring hate/animosity back towards the other individual. That makes them as bad as those threatening "Samantha" to begin with. They are doing the very thing they criticize others for, and on a much bigger platform.
Quote from: forgetful on June 30, 2020, 11:28:23 AM
TAMU, spot on.
One additional detail. McAdams and the radio reporter go to great length not to mention "Samantha's" real name for fear of bringing more vitriol against her.
But they openly share the person's, who reported her, name and social media handle. Again showing that his/their real goal is to bring hate/animosity back towards the other individual. That makes them as bad as those threatening "Samantha" to begin with. They are doing the very thing they criticize others for, and on a much bigger platform.
Hmm McAdams trying to protect someone who agrees with him politically while doxing a person who doesn't to his angry mob? Where have I heard that one before...
Quote from: tower912 on June 30, 2020, 11:11:32 AM
On-line bullying and threats of violence is wrong. Using your first amendment rights to comment on how someone else uses their first amendment rights is fine. We do it here all the time. Like it or not, people judge everything that gets posted. MU82 had been judged. Chicos, rocket, Ners, me, TAMU, .... it doesn't matter. You are entitled to your opinion. And others are entitled to judge and comment on that opinion when posted.
If you don't want to be called racist, homophobic, etc, don't post racist or homophobic things. If you hate being called a liar, quit lying. If you think the most important thing is for you to get your opinion out there, live with the consequences.
Agreed. This is really only a story if Marquette rescinds her acceptance, which I highly doubt they will nor should they. Universities should be places where young adults are allowed to debate competing ideas thoughtfully in way to prepare them for real life. But one of the tough realities people, especially teenagers, don't seem to understand is if you post something on social media platforms, the post is in the public domain and is thus open for criticism both fair and unfair from all corners of the internet. And if you post something incendiary, you're likely going to get an incendiary response. That's not to say threatening physical violence against her is appropriate, its actually quite the opposite and Marquette should follow up with any current student or faculty member doing so. But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.
Quote from: Warrior2008 on June 30, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.
Speech suppression and victim shaming all in one sentence, bravo or brava.
In all seriousness, that is a real bad prescident you're setting there. Don't post things others find harmful because then you deserve whatever comes your way? What if its speech you find acceptable but others find hateful, what then, can they shout you down?
Quote from: Warrior2008 on June 30, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
Agreed. This is really only a story if Marquette rescinds her acceptance, which I highly doubt they will nor should they. Universities should be places where young adults are allowed to debate competing ideas thoughtfully in way to prepare them for real life. But one of the tough realities people, especially teenagers, don't seem to understand is if you post something on social media platforms, the post is in the public domain and is thus open for criticism both fair and unfair from all corners of the internet. And if you post something incendiary, you're likely going to get an incendiary response. That's not to say threatening physical violence against her is appropriate, its actually quite the opposite and Marquette should follow up with any current student or faculty member doing so. But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.
Going on talk radio to play the victim doesn't lead me to believe that she's approaching her upcoming enrollment with an open mind.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 12:53:42 PM
Speech suppression and victim shaming all in one sentence, bravo or brava.
In all seriousness, that is a real bad prescident you're setting there. Don't post things others find harmful because then you deserve whatever comes your way? What if its speech you find acceptable but others find hateful, what then, can they shout you down?
Her speech has been so suppressed that she's becoming a darling of the local right wing media, where she's getting to speak to her heart's content.
Bullying and threats are sh*tty and wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. Not one person here has said differently.
But when you mock transgender people over an online platform viewable the world over, you're not a victim when people call you on it, nor is that speech suppression. People have just as much right to call your opinion stupid as you have the right to express a stupid opinion. It seems to be a common tactic these days to claim one's free speech is being suppressed because what was said is being criticized.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
Her speech has been so suppressed that she's becoming a darling of the local right wing media, where she's getting to speak to her heart's content.
Bullying and threats are sh*tty and wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. Not one person here has said differently.
But when you mock transgender people over an online platform viewable the world over, you're not a victim when people call you on it, nor is that speech suppression. People have just as much right to call your opinion stupid as you have the right to express a stupid opinion. It seems to be a common tactic these days to claim one's free speech is being suppressed because what was said is being criticized.
That's the brilliance of being a right wing victim. Give her time, she'll have a GoFundMe promoted by right wing media that will pay her tuition, pay her for speaking engagements, and get her a book deal. I'm not kidding.
As a (then) conservative student at MU, the amount of "everyone is out to get you" messaging I got from older students, a couple of professors in the Poli Sci program, TA's, and from student publications like YAF (this was pre-Internet) was ridiculous. My advisor in Poli Sci (not McAdams) talked me out of applying for the Truman Foundation scholarship because "they'll never give it to a conservative." This professor was a right-winger. Victimology is the driving force for right-wing college students and groups and is has been for decades.
Not that I endorse the cyberstalking and harassment of this individual. It's just as bad as what McAdams' minions did to the TA he had harassed away from MU. The far left is just as bad as the right (I was called a "racist" and "fascist" by a protester for saying I opposed looting and destruction that happened during the protests...by a white protestor who had been involved in destroying black-owned businesses). If you're not a "fascist" or a "racist" you're a "Marxist" or a "commie." If you're not vocal enough (based upon another's standards) you're part of the problem. No room in the middle anymore. I'm glad I'm not in college today.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/andrew-sullivan-is-there-still-room-for-debate.html
Future Governor Walker felt singled out for his political beliefs in college a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Quote from: tower912 on June 30, 2020, 01:53:06 PM
Future Governor Walker felt singled out for his political beliefs in college a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Which is exactly why this is so hilarious. The Marquette student body is full of conservative, Trump lovers. She will be fine.
Which is why I think TAMU's point about the actual content of her posts were the problem.
Wolfe v McAdams. Both extremely conservative. One made his classes interesting, challenged us to think, welcomed the free exchange of thought, invited anybody from any of his classes who was unable to go home for Thanksgiving to his home so they would not be alone.
One throws students and TA's under the bus.
You are only slightly defined by your political beliefs. You are are far more defined by your words, your actions, and how you direct them.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 12:53:42 PM
Speech suppression and victim shaming all in one sentence, bravo or brava.
In all seriousness, that is a real bad prescident you're setting there. Don't post things others find harmful because then you deserve whatever comes your way? What if its speech you find acceptable but others find hateful, what then, can they shout you down?
What a straw man response. She made her statements on a public forum and then complained when people exercised their first amendment right to disagree with her. Did I say she couldn't speak her mind, no I didn't. It seems her tour of Milwaukee talk radio has given her all the safe space airtime she could ever need. But if you can't handle people disagreeing with you on social media when making overtly racist or trans-phobic comments, then the simple explanation is to not use social media.
Until then, come back to me if Marquette rescinds her admission and then you can argue victim hood and speech suppression(to be fair, I would be inclined to agree with you then), but until then she's nothing more than any other teenager who posts stupid things on social media.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on June 30, 2020, 01:33:07 PM
That's the brilliance of being a right wing victim. Give her time, she'll have a GoFundMe promoted by right wing media that will pay her tuition, pay her for speaking engagements, and get her a book deal. I'm not kidding.
We've had a couple of situations that I jokingly refer to as "bringing a nuke to a knife fight." It starts out as spat over politics on Twitter or some other social media platform with people on both sides of the argument acting poorly (the knife fight). It ends with the conservative student on national talk radio or in one case Fox and Friends sending a mob of people from across the country against the liberal student (the nuke). There are certainly bad actors on both sides of these viral political arguments. My experience is that those on the conservative side usually have access to larger platforms because there is a market for "persecuted" conservative student stories that just doesn't exist for liberal students.
Quote from: Warrior2008 on June 30, 2020, 02:10:39 PM
What a straw man response. She made her statements on a public forum and then complained when people exercised their first amendment right to disagree with her. Did I say she couldn't speak her mind, no I didn't. It seems her tour of Milwaukee talk radio has given her all the safe space airtime she could ever need. But if you can't handle people disagreeing with you on social media when making overtly racist or trans-phobic comments, then the simple explanation is to not use social media.
Until then, come back to me if Marquette rescinds her admission and then you can argue victim hood and speech suppression(to be fair, I would be inclined to agree with you then), but until then she's nothing more than any other teenager who posts stupid things on social media.
I'm not supporting her statements, I'm quite certain they were some sort of phobic and/or hateful. Perhaps I misconstrued your intent, if you mean that if you don't want someone to contradict or call out something as hateful then don't post it...I get that and agree. I read your statement as a if you don't want anyone bad reaction (including threats) don't post.
My intent was not that she is being suppressed or victimized now, merely that what I thought you were espousing would lead to that end.
One thing I would caution, she quite likely said ignorant things, there should be a path to educating that ignorance that doesn't brand her for life. Her saying something phobic at 15 should be handled differently than someone who's 55 and says something similar.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 04:31:10 PM
One thing I would caution, she quite likely said ignorant things, there should be a path to educating that ignorance that doesn't brand her for life. Her saying something phobic at 15 should be handled differently than someone who's 55 and says something similar.
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately I suspect the only thing that she will learn is that the right wing outrage machine pays very well, whether in this case means fame, attention, or remuneration.
As long as her opinions are being celebrated and she is getting attention, it is unlikely that he will have any incentive to change. As Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Quote from: TSmith34 on June 30, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately I suspect the only thing that she will learn is that the right wing outrage machine pays very well, whether in this case means fame, attention, or remuneration.
As long as her opinions are being celebrated and she is getting attention, it is unlikely that he will have any incentive to change. As Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Agreed
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on June 30, 2020, 01:33:07 PM
That's the brilliance of being a right wing victim. Give her time, she'll have a GoFundMe promoted by right wing media that will pay her tuition, pay her for speaking engagements, and get her a book deal. I'm not kidding.
As a (then) conservative student at MU, the amount of "everyone is out to get you" messaging I got from older students, a couple of professors in the Poli Sci program, TA's, and from student publications like YAF (this was pre-Internet) was ridiculous. My advisor in Poli Sci (not McAdams) talked me out of applying for the Truman Foundation scholarship because "they'll never give it to a conservative." This professor was a right-winger. Victimology is the driving force for right-wing college students and groups and is has been for decades.
Not that I endorse the cyberstalking and harassment of this individual. It's just as bad as what McAdams' minions did to the TA he had harassed away from MU. The far left is just as bad as the right (I was called a "racist" and "fascist" by a protester for saying I opposed looting and destruction that happened during the protests...by a white protestor who had been involved in destroying black-owned businesses). If you're not a "fascist" or a "racist" you're a "Marxist" or a "commie." If you're not vocal enough (based upon another's standards) you're part of the problem. No room in the middle anymore. I'm glad I'm not in college today.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/andrew-sullivan-is-there-still-room-for-debate.html
Spot on. Everyone loves to play the victim now. Especially white middle class conservatives AND liberals at MU.
Death threats are wrong. And should be looked at.
But I have yet to hear anything to be critical of MU about...
Apologies if I missed it, but have we seen the original post or are we just miring in reckless speculation here?
Nevermind, this is Scoop.
Quote from: Coleman on July 01, 2020, 12:30:30 PM
Spot on. Everyone loves to play the victim now. Especially white middle class conservatives AND liberals at MU.
Death threats are wrong. And should be looked at.
But I have yet to hear anything to be critical of MU about...
at the college where I work there is an IG page dedicated to calling out racial injustice students have faced. Most are legit. I myself had witnessed some and almost quit over one involving a student with whom I was close. HOWEVER, there are also post complaining about the most ridiculous things. My favorite was that at one of the dining facilities they made banh mi sandwiches. Not only were they not good and "authentic" but the sign said "bahn mi" which shows they're racist. Now there's a push to have the contract canceled. Unbelievable. It's too bad these kids never had to eat at McCormick.
Quote from: forgetful on June 30, 2020, 11:28:23 AM
TAMU, spot on.
One additional detail. McAdams and the radio reporter go to great length not to mention "Samantha's" real name for fear of bringing more vitriol against her.
But they openly share the person's, who reported her, name and social media handle. Again showing that his/their real goal is to bring hate/animosity back towards the other individual. That makes them as bad as those threatening "Samantha" to begin with. They are doing the very thing they criticize others for, and on a much bigger platform.
I doubt McAdams has that big a following to impact those individuals.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 04:31:10 PM
I'm not supporting her statements, I'm quite certain they were some sort of phobic and/or hateful. Perhaps I misconstrued your intent, if you mean that if you don't want someone to contradict or call out something as hateful then don't post it...I get that and agree. I read your statement as a if you don't want anyone bad reaction (including threats) don't post.
My intent was not that she is being suppressed or victimized now, merely that what I thought you were espousing would lead to that end.
One thing I would caution, she quite likely said ignorant things, there should be a path to educating that ignorance that doesn't brand her for life. Her saying something phobic at 15 should be handled differently than someone who's 55 and says something similar.
I have no idea what she posted. Are LGBTQ students interviewed to see if their views are offensive to traditional Catholics at a Catholic University?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 01, 2020, 02:24:12 PM
I have no idea what she posted. Are LGBTQ students interviewed to see if their views are offensive to traditional Catholics at a Catholic University?
No.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 01, 2020, 02:06:33 PM
I doubt McAdams has that big a following to impact those individuals.
Absurd.
He was on a radio show that thousands listen to.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 01, 2020, 02:24:12 PM
I have no idea what she posted. Are LGBTQ students interviewed to see if their views are offensive to traditional Catholics at a Catholic University?
So maybe keep quiet a bit and wait for information before snapping to judge anyone. We could all stand to do this more often.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 01, 2020, 02:24:12 PM
I have no idea what she posted. Are LGBTQ students interviewed to see if their views are offensive to traditional Catholics at a Catholic University?
Why would they? There's nothing in Catholic doctrine condemning people who are LGBTQ+.There may be students who are offended but their offense isn't based in Catholic teachings.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 30, 2020, 04:31:10 PM
I'm not supporting her statements, I'm quite certain they were some sort of phobic and/or hateful . Perhaps I misconstrued your intent, if you mean that if you don't want someone to contradict or call out something as hateful then don't post it...I get that and agree. I read your statement as a if you don't want anyone bad reaction (including threats) don't post.
My intent was not that she is being suppressed or victimized now, merely that what I thought you were espousing would lead to that end.
One thing I would caution, she quite likely said ignorant things, there should be a path to educating that ignorance that doesn't brand her for life. Her saying something phobic at 15 should be handled differently than someone who's 55 and says something similar.
you are, are you? if you've heard or read what she posted, please share because that would be very helpful here.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
Bullying and threats are sh*tty and wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. Not one person here has said differently.
Pakuni
Both you and TAMU (and I'm sure others) have expressed these sentiments and I concur. Question: what do we mean by "not tolerating"? Expulsion from school? Revocation of admittance? Which is more serious, expressing a controversial, ignorant or even disgusting opinion or threatening violence or murder?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 01, 2020, 04:52:54 PM
Why would they? There's nothing in Catholic doctrine condemning people who are LGBTQ+.There may be students who are offended but their offense isn't based in Catholic teachings.
The Pope believes differently. Church will not perform same sex marriages which the LGBTQ community believes is homophobic nor do they believe that a man or women can be the opposite sex which the LGBTQ community believes is transphobic.
https://religionandpolitics.org/2019/07/30/the-vatican-draws-a-line-on-gender-and-transgender-catholics-push-back/
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 01, 2020, 10:45:06 PM
The Pope believes differently. Church will not perform same sex marriages which the LGBTQ community believes is homophobic nor do they believe that a man or women can be the opposite sex which the LGBTQ community believes is transphobic.
https://religionandpolitics.org/2019/07/30/the-vatican-draws-a-line-on-gender-and-transgender-catholics-push-back/
I didn't say anything about gay marriage or someone being the opposite sex, neither did you in the post I was responding to.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2020, 09:29:10 PM
Pakuni
Both you and TAMU (and I'm sure others) have expressed these sentiments and I concur. Question: what do we mean by "not tolerating"? Expulsion from school? Revocation of admittance? Which is more serious, expressing a controversial, ignorant or even disgusting opinion or threatening violence or murder?
Lenny,
Unfortunately, I can't give you a simple answer here. There's a broad spectrum between being mean online and making death threats, just as there's a broad spectrum between expressing a "controversial" opinion and being racist (and, no, being racist is not just an opinion). And that doesn't event account for whether it's a first-time or multiple offense, the offender's attitude about it, etc.
I do think threatening to kill or harm another student in many, if not most, cases is grounds for expulsion or revocation of admittance. I can imagine some exceptions, like two drunks get into a fight at a bar and one shouts "I'm going to kill you." But generally speaking, students who threaten to kill their peers should not be welcome at Marquette.
And because I know where you're going with this ... I don't think many instances of bad takes on social media are worthy of expulsion or pulling someone's acceptance. But repeated and unrepentant instances of racist or other hate speech? You don't belong at Marquette.
I trust in TAMU's vision for how this should be handled and believe Marquette will act with the tolerance and love toward one another that Catholic teaching requires.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of both the left screaming about so-called hostile speech and the right headed to conservative media to plead their case. In the name of God, whatever happened to tolerance? Tolerance of viewpoints other than your own? Acceptance of the fact people won't think like you, or me? It's going to happen. I promise!
Are we so afraid of the marketplace of ideas that we MUST silence those whose ideas threaten or even repulse us? God help us if we are, because we're sure going to need it.
Years ago, Larry Flynt owned what many thought to be a pornographic publication. There were efforts to shut him down on pornography grounds. The vast majority of Americans found Mr. Flynt and his publications disgusting. But we found the efforts to restrain his publications equally disgusting. We figured the market rather than the courts would silence him, which they eventually did. The big issue was that if pornography laws could be used to restrain free speech, what other laws could be used to restrain my ability to, say, criticize the direction of Marquette basketball? Or, restrain the Journal-Sentinel in its day-to-day coverage of events?
As a final thought, years ago when I was on campus, there were a series of what many today would consider offensive letters published in the Marquette Tribune. The letters questioned Catholic social teaching as it relates to our charitable work toward the folks that lived in the neighborhood near the university. The letters were sharp, pointed and, in some phrases, highly offensive. But they served a point for the university and its students. It enabled a robust debate on what our obligations as followers of Jesus were and it sparked discussion about Catholic Social Justice teachings. IN SHORT -- IT WAS A TEACHING MOMENT.
Diversity of thought in a University setting is what universities are about.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 02, 2020, 08:47:00 AM
Lenny,
Unfortunately, I can't give you a simple answer here. There's a broad spectrum between being mean online and making death threats, just as there's a broad spectrum between expressing a "controversial" opinion and being racist (and, no, being racist is not just an opinion). And that doesn't event account for whether it's a first-time or multiple offense, the offender's attitude about it, etc.
I do think threatening to kill or harm another student in many, if not most, cases is grounds for expulsion or revocation of admittance. I can imagine some exceptions, like two drunks get into a fight at a bar and one shouts "I'm going to kill you." But generally speaking, students who threaten to kill their peers should not be welcome at Marquette.
And because I know where you're going with this ... I don't think many instances of bad takes on social media are worthy of expulsion or pulling someone's acceptance. But repeated and unrepentant instances of racist or other hate speech? You don't belong at Marquette.
Good explanation - thanks.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 01, 2020, 04:52:54 PM
Why would they? There's nothing in Catholic doctrine condemning people who are LGBTQ+.There may be students who are offended but their offense isn't based in Catholic teachings.
Catholic "teaching" and Catholic doctrine are two different things. In my view, when we fail to teach the sermon on the mt., the evil of self rightiousness and greed we create the problems we now face. The common good, love and humility are left out of much so-called christian teaching.
The way I see Catholic teaching/doctrine is that there is very little to condem.
Since I will be sending my youngest daughter off to Marquette in a month I truly appreciate this civil and often illuminating discussion. TAMU's and Tower's are especially noteworthy. When I was at MU in the mid 80s (in student government with the former governor) there were plenty of controversies. Thankfully there was no internet and social media. I hope and pray that my daughter's next four years will give her the same education from diverse and thoughtful professors and a grounding in Catholic faith that I received.
Scotch, bourbon, or beer when I write the first tuition check? Or the John Lee Hooker version and drink all three?
Quote from: sodakmu87 on July 07, 2020, 05:51:56 PM
Scotch, bourbon, or beer when I write the first tuition check? Or the John Lee Hooker version and drink all three?
considering tuition today, the Icelandic national drink, BrennivÃn, a.k.a. Black Death would be your best choice.
Can I post this here? Generally don't know. Feel free to delete if not.
Anyways, this is making the rounds on Twitter this morning:
https://t.co/CPqbkAqEbc
That's one way to characterize what happened. ::)
Marquette isn't removing her. She's played this for all it's worth.
1. Already a thread or two about this
2. It's not portrayed accurately here.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 08, 2020, 10:40:21 AM
1. Already a thread or two about this
2. It's not portrayed accurately here.
Edit - see it now. Feel free to delete thread
Quote from: Tha Hound on July 08, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Can I post this here? Generally don't know. Feel free to delete if not.
Anyways, this is making the rounds on Twitter this morning:
https://t.co/CPqbkAqEbc
There's a better chance of Dameon Mason being inducted into the MU Hall of Fame than this article being an accurate depiction of what actually happened.
Ugh, I hate giving website traffic to the College Fix.
The most useful part of this article is the addendum at the bottom where they confirm that her admission is not being revoked (and likely was never in danger of being revoked). MU handled this exactly how universities are supposed to handle it when a student is reported to have posted hate speech online. Try to get the student to reflect on the impact of their actions on themselves and others and then move on.
As I said in the other thread, I'm still curious what the student actually posted. This article references one very vanilla video where the student expresses support for POTUS. But if you read some of the material in this article and other articles on the situation, those who reported her to the university cited multiple racist, transphobic, and homophobic comments as the reason for their report, not a single video. I can't imagine why these details would be left out by such an upstanding journalistic body.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 08, 2020, 11:28:03 AM
I can't imagine why these details would be left out by such an upstanding journalistic body.
I lol'd
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 08, 2020, 11:28:03 AM
Ugh, I hate giving website traffic to the College Fix.
The most useful part of this article is the addendum at the bottom where they confirm that her admission is not being revoked (and likely was never in danger of being revoked). MU handled this exactly how universities are supposed to handle it when a student is reported to have posted hate speech online. Try to get the student to reflect on the impact of their actions on themselves and others and then move on.
As I said in the other thread, I'm still curious what the student actually posted. This article references one very vanilla video where the student expresses support for POTUS. But if you read some of the material in this article and other articles on the situation, those who reported her to the university cited multiple racist, transphobic, and homophobic comments as the reason for their report, not a single video. I can't imagine why these details would be left out by such an upstanding journalistic body.
If you can't trust "The College Fix" who can you trust?
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on July 08, 2020, 01:43:26 PM
If you can't trust "The College Fix" who can you trust?
What's next on this slippery slope, will they be coming after The Chive?!?!
Quote from: reinko on July 08, 2020, 02:24:17 PM
What's next on this slippery slope, will they be coming after The Chive?!?!
I'd say The Onion but there are too many times where I am no longer positive an Onion headline is real or a joke.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 08, 2020, 11:28:03 AM
Ugh, I hate giving website traffic to the College Fix.
The most useful part of this article is the addendum at the bottom where they confirm that her admission is not being revoked (and likely was never in danger of being revoked). MU handled this exactly how universities are supposed to handle it when a student is reported to have posted hate speech online. Try to get the student to reflect on the impact of their actions on themselves and others and then move on.
As I said in the other thread, I'm still curious what the student actually posted. This article references one very vanilla video where the student expresses support for POTUS. But if you read some of the material in this article and other articles on the situation, those who reported her to the university cited multiple racist, transphobic, and homophobic comments as the reason for their report, not a single video. I can't imagine why these details would be left out by such an upstanding journalistic body.
Marquette's official response:
Marquette University's admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.
Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university's attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language. In this case, there were also concerns for the incoming student's safety, which were investigated by the Marquette University Police Department and discussed with the incoming student.
By their very nature, institutions of higher education are places of public dialogue and vigorous discourse about the most compelling issues of the day. The 500-year-old tradition of Catholic, Jesuit education is grounded in the discovery of knowledge and the sharing of diverse viewpoints – political or otherwise. Marquette takes this responsibility very seriously and prides itself on teaching our students how to think, not what to think. Through university-sponsored events, student organizations and myriad opportunities for engagement, diverse viewpoints from across the political spectrum are shared regularly with opportunity for discussion and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.
As a Catholic, Jesuit institution, Marquette remains committed to a transformational education, one that seeks to form and inform students so they can transform the world around us. This is accomplished through research, scholarship, service learning and, above all, the way we educate our students to be men and women for and with others.
Quote from: warriorchick on July 09, 2020, 12:38:33 PM
Marquette's official response:
Marquette University's admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.
Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university's attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language. In this case, there were also concerns for the incoming student's safety, which were investigated by the Marquette University Police Department and discussed with the incoming student.
By their very nature, institutions of higher education are places of public dialogue and vigorous discourse about the most compelling issues of the day. The 500-year-old tradition of Catholic, Jesuit education is grounded in the discovery of knowledge and the sharing of diverse viewpoints – political or otherwise. Marquette takes this responsibility very seriously and prides itself on teaching our students how to think, not what to think. Through university-sponsored events, student organizations and myriad opportunities for engagement, diverse viewpoints from across the political spectrum are shared regularly with opportunity for discussion and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.
As a Catholic, Jesuit institution, Marquette remains committed to a transformational education, one that seeks to form and inform students so they can transform the world around us. This is accomplished through research, scholarship, service learning and, above all, the way we educate our students to be men and women for and with others.
Hear that? That's the sound of Marquette successfully slamming the door on all of this.
I'm sure McAdams will still be spending his days responding to every comment on the articles.
By the way, I love that the article says they won't share the name of the incoming student for obvious reasons, but then shares the full name of the student that brought the concerns forward, to go along with screenshots of a number of her social media accounts. Good stuff.
Marquette's official response:
Marquette University's admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.
Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university's attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language. In this case, there were also concerns for the incoming student's safety, which were investigated by the Marquette University Police Department and discussed with the incoming student.
By their very nature, institutions of higher education are places of public dialogue and vigorous discourse about the most compelling issues of the day. The 500-year-old tradition of Catholic, Jesuit education is grounded in the discovery of knowledge and the sharing of diverse viewpoints – political or otherwise. Marquette takes this responsibility very seriously and prides itself on teaching our students how to think, not what to think. Through university-sponsored events, student organizations and myriad opportunities for engagement, diverse viewpoints from across the political spectrum are shared regularly with opportunity for discussion and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.
As a Catholic, Jesuit institution, Marquette remains committed to a transformational education, one that seeks to form and inform students so they can transform the world around us. This is accomplished through research, scholarship, service learning and, above all, the way we educate our students to be men and women for and with others.
[/quote]
Sounds like a very good response to me. It covers all the bases, "A" work.
Quote from: warriorchick on July 09, 2020, 12:38:33 PM
Marquette's official response:
Marquette University's admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.
Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university's attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language. In this case, there were also concerns for the incoming student's safety, which were investigated by the Marquette University Police Department and discussed with the incoming student.
By their very nature, institutions of higher education are places of public dialogue and vigorous discourse about the most compelling issues of the day. The 500-year-old tradition of Catholic, Jesuit education is grounded in the discovery of knowledge and the sharing of diverse viewpoints – political or otherwise. Marquette takes this responsibility very seriously and prides itself on teaching our students how to think, not what to think. Through university-sponsored events, student organizations and myriad opportunities for engagement, diverse viewpoints from across the political spectrum are shared regularly with opportunity for discussion and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.
As a Catholic, Jesuit institution, Marquette remains committed to a transformational education, one that seeks to form and inform students so they can transform the world around us. This is accomplished through research, scholarship, service learning and, above all, the way we educate our students to be men and women for and with others.
I'm honestly surprised they issued this direct of statement but can't find any fault with it. Like I said in the beginning of this thread, the student's admission was never in danger of being revoked. But saying it was made her famous for a few minutes. I noticed that in the past week she's become a "correspondent" for Campus Reform.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 09, 2020, 02:59:20 PM
I'm honestly surprised they issued this direct of statement but can't find any fault with it. Like I said in the beginning of this thread, the student's admission was never in danger of being revoked. But saying it was made her famous for a few minutes. I noticed that in the past week she's become a "correspondent" for Campus Reform.
There definitely was frustration behind their response. And that's fine.
Didn't I read that she was told her admission was under review? That sounds ominous to me and the questioning about someone else being uncomfortable with an apposing viewpoint is the concern.
Someone projecting their bias perhaps. Not a good story about a Christian University since this is not an isolated event in Academia these days.
She looked so happy to be attending MU . Sorry that her presidential preference had to be an issue.
(A) She made her presidential preference an issue.
(B) She is still going to go to Marquette.
(C) Fake martyrdom.
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 09, 2020, 06:10:04 PM
Didn't I read that she was told her admission was under review? That sounds ominous to me and the questioning about someone else being uncomfortable with an apposing viewpoint is the concern.
Someone projecting their bias perhaps. Not a good story about a Christian University since this is not an isolated event in Academia these days.
She looked so happy to be attending MU . Sorry that her presidential preference had to be an issue.
You need to sharpen your focus. Start with not being a gullible stooge.
MU followed up with her because she routinely used ethnic and racial slurs in her social media use. She cleaned it up, Marquette was mollified, everyone can move forward.
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 09, 2020, 06:10:04 PM
Didn't I read that she was told her admission was under review? That sounds ominous to me and the questioning about someone else being uncomfortable with an apposing viewpoint is the concern.
Someone projecting their bias perhaps. Not a good story about a Christian University since this is not an isolated event in Academia these days.
She looked so happy to be attending MU . Sorry that her presidential preference had to be an issue.
I'm not sure where you read that. Please, link it if you would.
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 09, 2020, 06:10:04 PM
Sorry that her presidential preference had to be an issue.
Her presidential preference wasn't an issue.
Her mocking of trans people and immigrants was.
Quote from: BLM on July 09, 2020, 01:35:33 PM
I'm sure McAdams will still be spending his days responding to every comment on the articles.
By the way, I love that the article says they won't share the name of the incoming student for obvious reasons, but then shares the full name of the student that brought the concerns forward, to go along with screenshots of a number of her social media accounts. Good stuff.
you are sure are ya?
it has already been pointed out what the article says and does not say about the identities of each
your screen name sure is provocative-do a search on susan rosenberg and assata shakur sometime. if you stand by your blm name after that, MU should call you into their office...just to make sure everything is alright.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2020, 07:38:11 PMyour screen name sure is provocative-do a search on susan rosenberg and assata shakur sometime. if you stand by your blm name after that, MU should call you into their office...just to make sure everything is alright.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the activists you cite haven't been significantly active in 40 years. FYI, while it is the 20s, it's not the 1920s.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 09, 2020, 07:44:40 PM
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the activists you cite haven't been significantly active in 40 years. FYI, while it is the 20s, it's not the 1920s.
you didn't follow my assignment very well-assasta has been hiding in cuba and rosenberg is one of the big fundraisers for blm. she's probably trying very hard not to violate the conditions of her pardon from billy bob after serving only 16 of 50 some year term. huh, she had some "alleged" involvement in the killing of police...weird
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2020, 08:12:44 PM
you didn't follow my assignment very well-assasta has been hiding in cuba and rosenberg is one of the big fundraisers for blm. she's probably trying very hard not to violate the conditions of her pardon from billy bob after serving only 16 of 50 some year term. huh, she had some "alleged" involvement in the killing of police...weird
Your inability to comprehend why wades has BLM as his username is willful ignorance.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 09, 2020, 08:19:10 PM
Your inability to comprehend why wades has BLM as his username is willful ignorance.
Bingo.
And here I thought he supported the Bureau of Land Management.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on July 09, 2020, 08:45:09 PM
And here I thought he supported the Bureau of Land Management.
(https://i.imgur.com/dhMeAzK.gif)
Quote from: Galway Eagle on July 09, 2020, 08:45:09 PM
And here I thought he supported the Bureau of Land Management.
Accurate. That's my username. My signature is the racist, communist, Marxist organization. I support them both.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on July 09, 2020, 08:45:09 PM
And here I thought he supported the Bureau of Land Management.
In some parts that BLM is an even scarier bogeyman.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 09, 2020, 07:44:40 PM
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the activists you cite haven't been significantly active in 40 years. FYI, while it is the 20s, it's not the 1920s.
1920s? Wrong Rosenberg, Brew.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 09, 2020, 08:19:10 PM
Your inability to comprehend why wades has BLM as his username is willful ignorance.
let's just start with willful provocation, after that, it doesn't matter. you think i hang out here 24/7 like you guys? is willful ignorance like not succeeding at something you at first want to take on, but suck at it and don't realize it? is that willful ignorance?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2020, 10:37:13 PM
let's just start with willful provocation, after that, it doesn't matter. you think i hang out here 24/7 like you guys? is willful ignorance like not succeeding at something you at first want to take on, but suck at it and don't realize it? is that willful ignorance?
What?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 09, 2020, 09:50:00 PM
1920s? Wrong Rosenberg, Brew.
It was hyperbole based on the current decade. Didn't think that was necessary to explain.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2020, 10:37:13 PM
let's just start with willful provocation, after that, it doesn't matter. you think i hang out here 24/7 like you guys? is willful ignorance like not succeeding at something you at first want to take on, but suck at it and don't realize it? is that willful ignorance?
No, it's when something has been explained on here ad nauseum and rather than learn from any of those hundreds of current posts, you prefer references that are 40 years out of date and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You are willfully choosing to be ignorant of the relevant information put in front of you in favor of irrelevant information that displays an ignorance of current events. That's willful ignorance.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2020, 10:37:13 PM
is willful ignorance like not succeeding at something you at first want to take on, but suck at it and don't realize it?
Like writing comprehensible sentences?
Why even engage with rocket? He's a relic of the past and ill-equipped to have a rational dialogue (or even a comprehensible one, for that matter). Just move on.
Why diversity of thought?
Do we want diversity just for the sake of diversity?
How about clear thought?
How about informed, considered, logical, helpful, honest, mature, creative thought?
Quote from: vogue65 on July 10, 2020, 06:10:03 PM
Why diversity of thought?
Do we want diversity just for the sake of diversity?
How about clear thought?
How about informed, considered, logical, helpful, honest, mature, creative thought?
Who are the thought police arbiters in charge of determining which thoughts (opinions) meet your criteria?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 10, 2020, 07:07:11 PM
Who are the thought police arbiters in charge of determining which thoughts (opinions) meet your criteria?
"Thought police" is an old trope lacking validity. Those thoughts and opinions which meet the test of reasonableness are self evident. People on the fringe worry about the "thought police".
Democracy is based on majority thinking, with protection for the minority. There is no such thing as the thought police, just another boogyman.
The thought police is another clever conspiracy theory. It is so frequently used it sounds like it is real. Think whatever you want to think, it does not make it so, and nobody has to argue with crazy thinking. It is what it is.
Some personalities, usually argumentative types, have to hold contrary positions about everything to feel good.
My position is think whatever you want, no policing necessary.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 10, 2020, 07:07:11 PM
Who are the thought police arbiters in charge of determining which thoughts (opinions) meet your criteria?
I think this is an age old question. Should all thoughts/ideas be freely expressed? What behavior do we accept, or brandish as corrupt/illegal?
There seems to be a point at which people abandon their ideals of freedom/liberty in deference to their desire to control the actions or words of others.
The general reason, is a fear that if we do not denounce specific language/actions, people who might have an inkling to lean in that direction will also do so. So where does one draw the line?
e.g.
Ok to smoke Nicotiana tabacum: Illegal to smoke Cannabis sativa.
Ok to post pictures of male nipple: outlandish to show a female nipple.
Terrible to say unnatural carnal knowledge: Ok to say Occupy (used to have a negative sexual connotation centuries ago).
Racism is not diversity of thought:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html
Quote from: forgetful on July 10, 2020, 11:27:03 PM
I think this is an age old question. Should all thoughts/ideas be freely expressed? What behavior do we accept, or brandish as corrupt/illegal?
There seems to be a point at which people abandon their ideals of freedom/liberty in deference to their desire to control the actions or words of others.
The general reason, is a fear that if we do not denounce specific language/actions, people who might have an inkling to lean in that direction will also do so. So where does one draw the line?
e.g.
Ok to smoke Nicotiana tabacum: Illegal to smoke Cannabis sativa.
Ok to post pictures of male nipple: outlandish to show a female nipple.
Terrible to say unnatural carnal knowledge: Ok to say Occupy (used to have a negative sexual connotation centuries ago).
Forgetful
Of course free societies have to regulate behavior. Behavior (murder, theft, mayhem, etc.) is an impingement on other's freedom.
Ideas? Not so much. When I was at MU, speakers from the left (Alan Ginsburg was one) were denied a podium because of the administration. Today (either because of administrations or students) universities discourage or cancel speakers from the right (Ben Shapiro, etc.). I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 11, 2020, 07:26:25 AM
Forgetful
Of course free societies have to regulate behavior. Behavior (murder, theft, mayhem, etc.) is an impingement on other's freedom.
Ideas? Not so much. When I was at MU, speakers from the left (Alan Ginsburg was one) were denied a podium because of the administration. Today (either because of administrations or students) universities discourage or cancel speakers from the right (Ben Shapiro, etc.). I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.
Universities deny speakers of all types when it becomes an issue related to PR, donor relations, safety, etc. The right has just learned how to leverage their supposed victimization.
Believe me, I have been involved in more decisions around whether or not to let a left leaning speaker go ahead than someone from the right.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 11, 2020, 07:26:25 AM
Forgetful
Of course free societies have to regulate behavior. Behavior (murder, theft, mayhem, etc.) is an impingement on other's freedom.
Ideas? Not so much. When I was at MU, speakers from the left (Alan Ginsburg was one) were denied a podium because of the administration. Today (either because of administrations or students) universities discourage or cancel speakers from the right (Ben Shapiro, etc.). I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.
My example of two photos (male vs. female nipple) is regarded as speech/ideas, not behavior. But more specifically on ideas/speech:
Do you permit hate speech, or calls for violence? If so what constitutes either?
Should we allow speakers that promote Nazi'ism and "final solutions"? This is extreme, but intentionally so, because I'm trying to question/identify if there is a "line".
Most of this debate is abstract legal mumbojumbo.
Stand up for what you know as right and let the chips fall. Pathetic extreme positions are indefensable.
Shysters, conmen, and hucksters will always be around, lots of them on MUScoop.
However, the majority of us are level headed.
The extreme has had it's day, I remain hopeful.
There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 11, 2020, 09:57:18 AM
There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.
Right on, now we are getting somewhere.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 11, 2020, 09:57:18 AM
There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.
Tucker Carlson had an audience of 4.331 million viewers on average, the highest rated cable news program. His racism, his racist rhetoric, and those of his recently resigned head writer Blake Neff (yesterday for racism, see above post) is a danger to the country. Looking the other way, ignoring, etc...is not okay. It is not a ok to call it a different viewpoint. It's not okay to say well but on this other issue blah blah....there is a basic starting point and basic expectation of zero tolerance for racism in my opinion.
I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 11, 2020, 01:04:22 PM
I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.
Not racist no. But a part of the problem trying to deepen the divide between Americans yes. And part of the idiotic comments that Fox make yes. See the Tammy Duckworth thing, the party that supposedly all pro our troops has turned into 'doesn't matter they vote left so "they hate America"'
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 11, 2020, 01:04:22 PM
I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.
This is easier than listing all the racist stuff Tucker has said (but I will, if you insist).
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/VIVWFx6c91AAwWLwWB/giphy.gif)
Quote from: shoothoops on July 11, 2020, 10:22:13 AM
Tucker Carlson had an audience of 4.331 million viewers on average, the highest rated cable news program. His racism, his racist rhetoric, is a danger to the country. Looking the other way, ignoring, etc...is not okay. It is not a ok to call it a different viewpoint. It's not okay to say well but on this other issue blah blah....there is a basic starting point and basic expectation of zero tolerance for racism in my opinion.
Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddow. You state (as if it's a fact) that he's a racist. Actually that's your opinion, and it's not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 11, 2020, 01:28:51 PM
Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddox. You state (as if it's a fact) that he's a racist. Actually that's your opinion, and it's not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.
He can't be racist because he has a job?
I guess I don't know for sure whether or not Tucker is racist. I'm not in his head, after all (that would be Tammy Duckworth).
But I do know he sure has a knack for saying racist things and fueling fears of brown people.
Whether or not Tucker Carlson is racist, he is the only one out there willing to tell us the truth about sex crazed pandas and zombie racoons.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 11, 2020, 01:37:12 PM
He can't be racist because he has a job?
I guess I don't know for sure whether or not Tucker is racist. I'm not in his head, after all (that would be Tammy Duckworth).
But I do know he sure has a knack for saying racist things and fueling fears of brown people.
Who said he is or isn't a racist? Or that his having a job had anything to do with it? I said it's an opinion, not a fact. And based on nothing more than his opinion, shoot hoops wants the guy branded, silenced and removed from the conversation. That's not how it should work here.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 11, 2020, 01:28:51 PM
Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddow. You state (as if it's a fact) that he's a racist. Actually that's your opinion, and it's not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.
In his own audio words to name one of many, many examples:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1105265381969670146?s=19
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 11, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
Who said he is or isn't a racist? Or that his having a job had anything to do with it? I said it's an opinion, not a fact. And based on nothing more than his opinion, shoot hoops wants the guy branded, silenced and removed from the conversation. That's not how it should work here.
You're the one who brought his job into this as if it shields him from the accusation, Lenny.
And yes, racists should be removed from the conversation. It is exactly how it should work here. Racists and those who espouse racist thinking have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Do you disagree?
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 11, 2020, 01:04:22 PM
I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.
Actually, you do know about his writer, but dismiss it. And if you don't think Tucker is a racist and a white supremacist, you are simply ignoring reality.
I'm all for diversity of thought.
I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons, when and where to apply or not apply a 94 feet man to man full court press, a 1-3-1 trap, 2-2-1, 2-1-2, 3-2, triangle and two, box and one, etc ..or none of the above when discussing full court pressure in basketball. Opinions can and do vary, and there are a wide variety of ways to be successful.
But racism still isn't diversity of thought
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 10, 2020, 08:28:17 AM
No, it's when something has been explained on here ad nauseum and rather than learn from any of those hundreds of current posts, you prefer references that are 40 years out of date and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You are willfully choosing to be ignorant of the relevant information put in front of you in favor of irrelevant information that displays an ignorance of current events. That's willful ignorance.
Brew, let me help you. You are being trolled.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 10, 2020, 08:28:17 AM
No, it's when something has been explained on here ad nauseum and rather than learn from any of those hundreds of current posts, you prefer references that are 40 years out of date and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You are willfully choosing to be ignorant of the relevant information put in front of you in favor of irrelevant information that displays an ignorance of current events. That's willful ignorance.
"40 years out of date" ? examples? irrelevant info? maybe to you guys...ignorance of current events? nope
Quote from: Pakuni on July 11, 2020, 02:13:41 PM
And yes, racists should be removed from the conversation. It is exactly how it should work here. Racists and those who espouse racist thinking have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Do you disagree?
I have no problem eliminating racists from the conversation. The KKK, American Nazi Party and others of that ilk shouldn't have a seat at the table - and I think their is consensus on that.
Beyond that, who decides? What's the litmus test? Are uncomfortable conversations allowed? I think self appointed authoritarians like shoothoops are much more dangerous than crackpot Nazis who attract only other crackpots. Don't like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, etc., - fine. Have the debate and win it. Don't eliminate debate by screaming "Racist!"
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 12, 2020, 09:38:21 AM
I have no problem eliminating racists from the conversation. The KKK, American Nazi Party and others of that ilk shouldn't have a seat at the table - and I think their is consensus on that.
Beyond that, who decides? What's the litmus test? Are uncomfortable conversations allowed? I think self appointed authoritarians like shoothoops are much more dangerous than crackpot Nazis who attract only other crackpots. Don't like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, etc., - fine. Have the debate and win it. Don't eliminate debate by screaming "Racist!"
Why is your opinion that Tucker isn't racist more valid than shoothoops' opinion that he is?
Why is he a self-appointed authoritarian for wanting to exclude those he believes are racist, but you're not when you want to exclude the groups you believe are racist? I mean, the Louis Farrakhans and Michelle Malkins of the world insist they're not racist, so aren't you just another self-appointed authoritarian if you don't welcome their views into the discussion?
Why does calling a statement or person "racist" eliminate debate? And how does calling others "self-appointed authoritarians" and "dangerous" foster debate?
Anyhow, my larger point here is that there is no litmus test. If you think Tucker isn't a racist, that's your right. And if shoothoops thinks he is, that's his right.
And, honestly Lenny, labeling shoothoops "much more dangerous" than Nazis is an incredibly bad take. To the best of my knowledge, shoothoops' beliefs haven't inspired many murders lately. Would you like me list all the murders committed and/or inspired by white supremacists over the last decade? It'll be a long list.
You may not like shoothoops' opinion, but calling him more dangerous than a Nazi is bad form.
Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on July 11, 2020, 01:04:22 PM
I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.
Living in this bubble got you covered well during the Covid pandemic. Kudos.
Lenny completely glossed over the evidence. He did not address the evidence I provided to support my claim.
My point of view, as some, if not many here seem to understand and perhaps share is that Racism is not a topic in the category of diversity of viewpoint. It is a non-starter. Zero credibility.
Zero tolerance policy. None. It isn't good enough to ignore, enable, etc..either.
There is ample evidence that (in this example) Tucker Carlson is racist, he has said, shared, implied many racists things over a long period of time. He hired a head writer for both his books and tv show that resigned for his racism.
Now if you want we can discuss that Tucker Carlson is actually a narcissist and take a deep dive into narcissism what that means... besides lack of empathy, narcissists really aren't committed to an ideology and merely change and adapt to what works for them at the time. So you could say he does or doesn't perhaps believe all of the things he says and does, but, he still says and does them, which is what matters.
Clearly Lenny likes Tucker Carlson and/or some things about him or his viewpoints. And Lenny also appears sensitive to be associated with a racist. Well 4.33 million viewers would suggest Lenny is not alone in America. So there's that.
It's 2020, if we can't by now treat other people equally in all aspects of life, opportunity, success, resources based on race, and do so in an integrated way, I really don't know what else to say.
But let's not sit here and pretend and dance around things because they make one's affiliations look or appear bad.
As you say, "racism is not diversity of thought", nor is the KKK, Nazism or even for that matter the Condederancy. What do some of these people want? Another civil war, a race riot, another world war or a discussion of the benifits of slave labor and vigilante justice?
And all in the name of diversity of thought, fair and balanced dialog.
As someone said, you are being trolled, and I'm being kind. My fear is that some of these people want violence. God help us.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2020, 11:22:15 AM
Why is your opinion that Tucker isn't racist more valid than shoothoops' opinion that he is?
Why is he a self-appointed authoritarian for wanting to exclude those he believes are racist, but you're not when you want to exclude the groups you believe are racist? I mean, the Louis Farrakhans and Michelle Malkins of the world insist they're not racist, so aren't you just another self-appointed authoritarian if you don't welcome their views into the discussion?
Why does calling a statement or person "racist" eliminate debate? And how does calling others "self-appointed authoritarians" and "dangerous" foster debate?
Anyhow, my larger point here is that there is no litmus test. If you think Tucker isn't a racist, that's your right. And if shoothoops thinks he is, that's his right.
And, honestly Lenny, labeling shoothoops "much more dangerous" than Nazis is an incredibly bad take. To the best of my knowledge, shoothoops' beliefs haven't inspired many murders lately. Would you like me list all the murders committed and/or inspired by white supremacists over the last decade? It'll be a long list.
You may not like shoothoops' opinion, but calling him more dangerous than a Nazi is bad form.
I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren't enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they've shared their beliefs and we've concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.
That's how it's supposed to work. When you're enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You're cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don't give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I've probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.
There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be "cancelled" because of what I think. That's not the way it's supposed to work here.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 12, 2020, 02:07:40 PM
I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren't enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they've shared their beliefs and we've concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.
That's how it's supposed to work. When you're enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You're cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don't give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I've probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.
There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be "cancelled" because of what I think. That's not the way it's supposed to work here.
Hay Len,
I suggest you read your history.
How did Germany legally elect Hitler?
How did American right wing fascists keep America out of World War II until after Pearl Harbor?
How did the Union break apart and suffer a civil war?
How did our country become an armed camp with mass shootings?
How did France end up with Nepolian?
How did Italy end up with Mussolini?
So much for the glories of "diversity of thought".
Now we have a megaphone for hate called the internet.
I don't put as much faith in our government monitoring diversity of thought as you.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 12, 2020, 02:07:40 PM
I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren't enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they've shared their beliefs and we've concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.
That's how it's supposed to work. When you're enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You're cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don't give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I've probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.
There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be "cancelled" because of what I think. That's not the way it's supposed to work here.
You still haven't answered the evidence presented in his own words of Carlson's racism. Now you throw out a bunch of names to muddy the waters and gaslight. Racism isn't ok. Consequences to racism isn't be cancelled.
ND sucks
DIVORCE AGREEMENT Between Republicans & Democrats
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement: --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks
We'll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
-We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll
keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and"The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kumbaya "or" We Are the World."
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law Student and American!
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Forward This Every Time You Get It! Let's Keep This Going,Maybe Some of It Will Start Sinking In
Quote from: vogue65 on July 12, 2020, 02:30:53 PM
Hay Len,
I suggest you read your history.
How did Germany legally elect Hitler?
How did American right wing fascists keep America out of World War II until after Pearl Harbor?
How did the Union break apart and suffer a civil war?
How did our country become an armed camp with mass shootings?
How did France end up with Nepolian?
How did Italy end up with Mussolini?
So much for the glories of "diversity of thought".
Now we have a megaphone for hate called the internet.
I don't put as much faith in our government monitoring diversity of thought as you.
Hey Vogue,
You're right that sometimes bad guys get elected. How do countries that restrict free speech to make sure the right guy win fare?
I put more faith in the imperfect than the authoritarian.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 12, 2020, 05:05:06 PM
DIVORCE AGREEMENT Between Republicans & Democrats
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement: --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks
We'll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
-We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll
keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and"The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kumbaya "or" We Are the World."
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law Student and American!
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Forward This Every Time You Get It! Let's Keep This Going,Maybe Some of It Will Start Sinking In
This is idiotic and was a waste of a read. But you've got a deal seeing as the real welfare states are primarily those that are reddest.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 12, 2020, 05:05:06 PM
DIVORCE AGREEMENT Between Republicans & Democrats
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement: --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks
We'll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
-We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll
keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and"The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kumbaya "or" We Are the World."
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law Student and American!
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Forward This Every Time You Get It! Let's Keep This Going,Maybe Some of It Will Start Sinking In
I didn't realize my goofy ass uncle posted here.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on July 12, 2020, 05:28:27 PM
I didn't realize my goofy ass uncle posted here.
yes, you did.
Bummer he went QAnon during his rehab, but always loved him as a hooper.
Holy crap, missed the clear hate speech toward one of the worlds largest religions.
Yooooo Doc this + your post DT is the greatest president of your lifetime, says a lot.
LOL. Some old guy re-posts a bad chain letter like it's AOL in 1997. Love it.
Don't forget to forward it to five people in the next hour or you'll be cursed for the next 10 years!
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on July 12, 2020, 05:28:27 PM
I didn't realize my goofy ass uncle posted here.
da pinecone don't fall too far from the tree
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 12, 2020, 05:05:06 PM
DIVORCE AGREEMENT Between Republicans & Democrats
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement: --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks
We'll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
-We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll
keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and"The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kumbaya "or" We Are the World."
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law Student and American!
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Forward This Every Time You Get It! Let's Keep This Going,Maybe Some of It Will Start Sinking In
Time to check yourself into the old folks home. They'll take real good care of you there.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 12, 2020, 05:05:06 PM
DIVORCE AGREEMENT Between Republicans & Democrats
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement: --Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks
We'll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
-We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll
keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and"The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kumbaya "or" We Are the World."
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law Student and American!
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Forward This Every Time You Get It! Let's Keep This Going,Maybe Some of It Will Start Sinking In
P.P.S.
I'm sure he'll make a great lawyer.
Posting chain emails to Scoop, alright imma head out.
Strap on the Velcro New Balance and keep shaking your fist at those kids, doc.
Hey remember when a "well respected" and tenured poster threw up an Islamophobic post yesterday and no one seems to care?
But hey, not big deal aina?
https://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2020/07/n-racism-accountability
This article popped up on one of the listservs I subscribe to. Marquette is far from the only university dealing with these situations and you'll see that this particular university (University of Arizona) handles themselves in the exact same fashion as Marquette. The article focuses on Arizona's policies, but I can tell you from experience that while the specific legalese may change, every university has a similar set of policies. For a piece of student journalism, I was impressed with this article. No clear bias and did good job explaining some policies that can pretty convoluted at times.
Quote from: reinko on July 13, 2020, 04:25:40 PM
Hey remember when a "well respected" and tenured poster threw up an Islamophobic post yesterday and no one seems to care?
But hey, not big deal aina?
You'll soon be met with a "you're being trolled" post. Or maybe "this place is a joke and I treat it as such".
I *think* that's called gaslighting
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 12, 2020, 05:07:13 PM
Hey Vogue,
You're right that sometimes bad guys get elected. How do countries that restrict free speech to make sure the right guy win fare?
I put more faith in the imperfect than the authoritarian.
No problem when bad guy gets elected as dog catcher, have a problem when bad guy takes down millions of people.
In the meanwhile I'll speak out against hate speech. No pass in the name of so-called "diversity of thought". Evil is evil and needs to be labeled and confronted, the sooner the better, I'm sure you agree.
ND sucks, eh?
Quote from: jesmu84 on July 13, 2020, 05:05:58 PM
You'll soon be met with a "you're being trolled" post. Or maybe "this place is a joke and I treat it as such".
I *think* that's called gaslighting
I think gaslighting is when I'm told to not believe my lyn eyes.
My way of sidestepping the trolls around here is to try and not go for the bait. It is a learned skill and not by strong suit.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/young-conservative-women-stand-liberal-032718192.html
No comment on content or source just the sweatshirt.
Quote from: radome on July 14, 2020, 07:49:36 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/young-conservative-women-stand-liberal-032718192.html
No comment on content or source just the sweatshirt.
She appeared on Fox News and if even Laura Ingraham questions whether or not you were persecuted by Marquette for being conservative, you know the claim is B.S.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6171407952001?fbclid=IwAR2Gwv1UPLVqNBxan2qmhwJrvM4LT2t-5AcZrdSpgeXSYpaL9E-kwqe7EoI#sp=show-clips
Guys, give 4ever some time to respond, his AOL dial-up is being finnicky, time to install the latest CD from the mail
Quote from: warriorchick on July 14, 2020, 08:07:40 PM
She appeared on Fox News and if even Laura Ingraham questions whether or not you were persecuted by Marquette for being conservative, you know the claim is B.S.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6171407952001?fbclid=IwAR2Gwv1UPLVqNBxan2qmhwJrvM4LT2t-5AcZrdSpgeXSYpaL9E-kwqe7EoI#sp=show-clips
a headline like this just screams "fair and balanced," don't you think?
"Young conservative women stand up to liberal mob"