Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Trump Administration
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,947
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #12721
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

If so, it would not be the first alleged "culture" on college campuses to be more self-serving myth than grounded reality.
Yesterday 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,276
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12722
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 09:58 PM by tanqtonic.)
Yesterday 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12723
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.


I have been thinking something similar regarding the influence of the MSM on the public perception of Trump.
Yesterday 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12724
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?
Yesterday 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12725
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?
Yesterday 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12726
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?
Yesterday 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12727
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

Of course. Statements like "I'm going to kill you" or "kill cracker babies" cannot be tolerated. Statements like "I don't agree with the objectives of BLM" or "I don't agree with Trump" can be. Statements like "I want a raise" can go either way.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:23 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
Yesterday 11:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #12728
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 07:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(07-02-2020 03:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(07-02-2020 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd point out that Big did the exact same thing, when he noted that comparing Biden in Ukraine to Trump, that he feels Trump has profited from his election, so he's okay with it.

That is not remotely what I said. I'm not OK with it in the way the Trump family has obviously done it (Trump staying at Trump properties and forcing other government employees like Secret Service to stay at his properties is the easiest example). I'm not OK with it in the way that OO asked in his hypothetical (and I said as much). What I said was that even if Trump and Biden were equally bad in that way (and for the record, I do not think they are), that issue would merely cancel out in my mind but I would still have other reasons to vote for Biden.


No, no... Big.... YOU don't get to make distinctions if I don't. You guys have all denied us any nuance to our positions... so you as well are denied.

You said that you would vote for Biden even if he used his political position for personal gain... you are thus (by the rules YOU guys have put in place) 'indistinguishable' from those who are okay with it, thus YOU are okay with it.

Can you see why someone might get upset at people doing that to them, repeatedly?

Sure! Except I did the opposite of that. Give it up, either you don't get it, I don't get it, we both don't get it, or we both get it. Go Rice 04-cheers

I will say this. You and I met in person and got along. George and I have met in person and got along. I have no doubts whatsoever that if we were having these kinds of discussions over a pitcher of beer, we wouldn't be running into these kinds of roadblocks, misconceptions, and difficulties communicating. I have shed any of those at this point and I hope you do the same if we are ever fortunate enough to meet again. Maybe something we can all agree on is that these kinds of discussions are much more difficult to engage in via written word, where we can say or insinuate things that we would often not do to each other's face (or at least we would be able to see the humor in the other's eyes when making a subtle prod).
(This post was last modified: Today 02:22 AM by mrbig.)
Today 02:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #12729
RE: Trump Administration
(07-04-2020 10:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kanye West announced tonight he's running for President. I guess these folks who don't like Trump but can't stand the Democrats can vote for him. Of course he probably can't get on the ballot in Texas because it's too late, but maybe you can write him in somehow.

My first thought was how many states can he actually get on the ballot at this point?
Today 02:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12730
RE: Trump Administration
(Yesterday 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.


I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

Of course. Statements like "I'm going to kill you" or "kill cracker babies" cannot be tolerated. Statements like "I don't agree with the objectives of BLM" or "I don't agree with Trump" can be. Statements like "I want a raise" can go either way.

Hence my question about when something becomes “being canceled.”

I’ve not thought about it a lot, and where it would lie for me. But the instance Tanq provided, where a U Chicago prof was being called to step down from a journal because of what he has tweeted got me wondering, especially since the calls were coming from his peers.

Edit: ironically, the article Tanq posted had this nugget, which supports my initial comment:

Quote: Christopher Brunet, an economist and freelance coder, told Fox News: "There are a million screeching Berkeley PhDs on Twitter, but the silent majority of economics professors aren't on Twitter -- they are buttoned up, and they overwhelmingly support Harald and freedom of speech."

My God, I should have read this article more carefully last night. This quote, from the person Gregg Re is trying to defend stands out as impressively in-self aware.

Quote: "Don’t get me wrong," Uhlig wrote in the post, apparently to no avail. "Of course, these football players have the right to express their views about the treatment of blacks by the police, they have the right to protest President Trump and they have the right to kneel during the national anthem. Club owners have the right to fire them because of it, by the way: so Trump actually did not attack the constitutional rights of football players, but what an annoying and pesky detail, right?"

I guess the difference is that are isn’t arguing that the movement isn’t unconstitutional? But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.
(This post was last modified: Today 05:31 AM by RiceLad15.)
Today 05:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: RiceLad15, 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.