+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: Questionable Thresher Ad (/thread-839871.html)
Questionable Thresher Ad - RiceOwl - 01-11-2018 05:46 PM
Stumbled across this on Twitter...
https://twitter.com/andrewreue/status/951563946200322048
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Antarius - 01-11-2018 05:50 PM
Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - westsidewolf1989 - 01-11-2018 06:14 PM
This is definitely the Backpage. I would imagine the editors-in-chief and Backpage editors would resign.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - seniorowl - 01-11-2018 06:16 PM
This is racist.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Tomball Owl - 01-11-2018 06:17 PM
(01-11-2018 05:50 PM)Antarius Wrote: Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.
Who is "them"? What action did they take?
And there is nothing "questionable" about the ad. It's disgusting.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - greyowl72 - 01-11-2018 06:20 PM
Immature. Poor taste.
Ignore.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Antarius - 01-11-2018 06:20 PM
(01-11-2018 06:17 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(01-11-2018 05:50 PM)Antarius Wrote: Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.
Who is "them"? What action did they take?
And there is nothing "questionable" about the ad. It's disgusting.
That was intended to be sarcasm. My bad... tone doesn't always make it thru text as well as intended.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - RiceOwl - 01-11-2018 06:21 PM
Tomball Owl, despite the thread title, I 100% agree that the ad is disgusting.
I am embarrassed someone allowed this to be printed. It is only a matter of time until this spreads all across social media.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - seniorowl - 01-11-2018 06:22 PM
Leebron just received a very polite email from me.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Antarius - 01-11-2018 06:24 PM
(01-11-2018 06:22 PM)seniorowl Wrote: Leebron just received a very polite email from me.
As stupid as this is, I don't believe Leebron should be the one involved. Keeping the press independent from the University suits is a good thing.
That said, the people in charge and the Thresher Faculty/Staff adviser should really exercise better judgement. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you act like an ******* idiot.
That said, on further thought - this does reflect poorly on Rice.. so maybe Leebron will need to make a statement.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - cr11owl - 01-11-2018 06:29 PM
(01-11-2018 06:14 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: This is definitely the Backpage. I would imagine the editors-in-chief and Backpage editors would resign.
+1. I’m guessing it happens by the end of the week.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - seniorowl - 01-11-2018 06:36 PM
Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Seventyniner - 01-11-2018 06:39 PM
(01-11-2018 06:20 PM)greyowl72 Wrote: Immature. Poor taste.
Ignore.
The first two for sure, though that is to be expected from the Backpage at least sometimes. It will certainly not be ignored though.
Someone at some level really should have known better than to let this slide.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Antarius - 01-11-2018 06:41 PM
(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote: Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.
Only if direct, personal, defamatory to an individual or direct group. Not a general statement. At least I think. Not a lawyer
Matal vs Tam majority opinion
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
I just really do wonder.. we had the same sort of thing happen when I was a student with a Backpage editor who thought he was waaaay funnier than anyone else thought he was. Do they actually read what they write? Or is it in such a filter bubble that no one was like "wtf" to this?
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - tanqtonic - 01-11-2018 06:44 PM
(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote: Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.
Actually, it is. Hate to tell you there is no 'hate speech exception' to the 1st amendment with respect to government action.
The Thresher, being a private entity, may do whatever it pleases re: what it prints -- defamatory speech excluded.
Shouldnt detract from that the selection is in amazingly poor taste *and* judgement to be printed by the Thresher....
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Frizzy Owl - 01-11-2018 07:32 PM
I found the article offensive.
I hope the editor(s) are not compelled to resign.
I do not need or want censors to protect my feelings.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Antarius - 01-11-2018 08:50 PM
(01-11-2018 07:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: I found the article offensive.
I hope the editor(s) are not compelled to resign.
I do not need or want censors to protect my feelings.
It's not about not being offensive. It's about executing piss poor judgement, IMO.
I hope the Thresher is not censored or limited going forward. That said, there should be a penalty for being an idiot. Actions have consequences.
I didn't find it offensive as much as embarrassing. Nothi ng says rice has a bunch of non-funny weirdos better than this.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - seniorowl - 01-11-2018 11:39 PM
It was done out of spite of another person. Not funny, it is hateful.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - georgewebb - 01-12-2018 06:35 AM
(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote: Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.
That statement is frighteningly ignorant, much more so than anything in the Thresher.
RE: Questionable Thresher Ad - Frizzy Owl - 01-12-2018 08:34 AM
(01-11-2018 11:39 PM)seniorowl Wrote: It was done out of spite of another person. Not funny, it is hateful.
I think it's possible that it was meant as a joke, but of course is not funny and in poor taste.