McAdams Lives - Continues to Take On Lovell

[GGGG]

It shouldn't be my choice. Honestly, your tactics are a great example of why I haven't posted a lot of information on here I otherwise would have.

Seriously, stop being such a whiner.  I'm not posting political points of view.  I'm not debating any sort of political position.

[Blue Horseshoe]

It's awesome that you didn't even read the account of what happened McAdams is relying upon (which I'm sure it totally unbiased) and yet you come here pontificating about how awful Marquette acted.

"Seems like you think that Snapchats are sent out to the masses at random (they are not)./"

From McAdams's blog:
Alex and friends were playing a "game" in which they would randomly scroll through their phones while the "Apple Airdrop" function was on, which allows photos to be sent to all nearby devices without specifying a recipient

So they sent this photo out to everyone near by without specifying who. that is the very definition of sending it out at random. In fact, McAdams goes on to write:
"Sending photos to random people who happen to be connected to the same Wi-Fi hotspot is pretty dumb."

"If he is beyond 18 I would not characterize him as a "boy""
From McAdams' blog:
The photo was shot almost two years ago, with Enrique and some of his high school buddies and members of his soccer team.  The black doll was owned by one of Enrique's buddies; he carried it around a lot.

The doll was supposedly owned and carried around more than two years ago by a kid in high school. Not an 18-year-old college student. A boy.

I mean, one would think you would at least read what happened before you came here condemning anyone.

It is more awesome that you are making my point and are so snarky about it.

"Alex and friends were playing a "game" in which they would randomly scroll through their phones while the "Apple Airdrop" function was on, which allows photos to be sent to all nearby devices without specifying a recipient"
- Snapchats are not sent via airdrop. Someone took a screenshot of the snap and then it was shared later.

"The photo was shot almost two years ago, with Enrique and some of his high school buddies and members of his soccer team.  The black doll was owned by one of Enrique's buddies; he carried it around a lot."
-I guess you have me on a technicality that teenagers in high school are "boys". I think this seems even more brutal that Marquette would expel a then 15/16/17 year old - now student former student for posing with a doll that is a different skin color.

Continuing to play out your logic.... all current students would need to be vetted to examine if they have ever participated in "insensitive" behavior. What age must we go back to examine? What standards dictate an offense that is beyond the pale and will result in expulsion?

[GGGG]

When put in simple terms, your logic is incredibly flawed. Racism = posing with a doll that is a different skin color? Lumping that person (or 4 people in this case) together with real racists is simply offensive. Do you not see the disconnect?

First of all, I didn't call him a racist.  I said he was "being racist," ie, his actions were racist.  Which IMO they clearly were.

Second, he wasn't simply "posing with a doll that is different skin color."  They were pointing a toy gun at the doll.  Being intellectually dishonest by excluding key details of the photo isn't a good look.

[Jay Bee]

Seriously, stop being such a whiner.  I'm not posting political points of view.  I'm not debating any sort of political position.

You're taking a Supreme Court opinion and claiming it's political, then rejoicing in the fact you're claiming it's political.

FOH

[Blue Horseshoe]

First of all, I didn't call him a racist.  I said he was "being racist," ie, his actions were racist.  Which IMO they clearly were.

Second, he wasn't simply "posing with a doll that is different skin color."  They were pointing a toy gun at the doll.  Being intellectually dishonest by excluding key details of the photo isn't a good look.

1. Your point is clear, Penny + Lil Penny = ok because they are the same skin color. Fred Rogers + Lil Penny = not ok because they are different.


2. The gun is not real. The doll is not a person. The image is a joke. Intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

3. Please define racism and explain why, in your opinion, the image is an act of racism.

[GGGG]

You're taking a Supreme Court opinion and claiming it's political, then rejoicing in the fact you're claiming it's political.

FOH

Yes.  I am claiming that the Supreme Court decision was based on politics.  That is not a political statement.

[Jay Bee]

Yes.  I am claiming that the Supreme Court decision was based on politics.  That is not a political statement.

Might have to "knock" some sense into you.

Take pride in making Scoop less valuable, bud.

[GGGG]

1. Your point is clear, Penny + Lil Penny = ok because they are the same skin color. Fred Rogers + Lil Penny = not ok because they are different.

2. The gun is not real. The doll is not a person. The image is a joke. Intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

3. Please define racism and explain why, in your opinion, the image is an act of racism.

1. No.  That's not the point at all.  If Fred Rogers was simply sitting on a couch with a black doll, that is just fine.  If Fred Rogers was pointing a gun at a black doll with a slang word for "Amen" underneath, that is a racist act.

2. That hardly matters.  Draw a cartoon of a black person being lynched on a tree and see how far you can get by saying "the person isn't real.  The noose isn't real."  Symbols matter.

3.  I've done that already.

[GGGG]

Might have to "knock" some sense into you.

Take pride in making Scoop less valuable, bud.

Dude if you're going to stay away because you think I'm making political statements in the Superbar, that really is a "you" problem.  It's odd and weird that you will hold out information because of this.

It's really simple.  Report the post.  If the moderators ask me to stop, I will stop.  It's their rules and they are enforcers of the rules.