(07-26-2023 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is a big difference between objective criteria based comparison with data, and an attempt to deflect 'the same actions you all do' as an implied form of justification.

examples?

(07-27-2023 02:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IOW, whaddaboutism is used to point out and complain about hypocrisy and double standards.

I usually think of Waddaboutism as the standard response when one points out hypocrisy or double standards.

The hypocrisy and double standards of who? I made the post and you gave me a whaddabout. Are you saying that I am hypocritical in terms of this topic? Because you would be wrong.

Nothing particular toward you. I have been pointing out Democrat hypocrisy and what I have called the Democrat Double Standard for years.

Edit: oops. I thought this post was directed at me, not Numbers, but I had the same reaction, that 93 was trying to put words in my mouth.

Edit: Maybe it would be a good rule of thumb to beware of any post including "are you trying to..."

(07-27-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is a big difference between objective criteria based comparison with data, and an attempt to deflect 'the same actions you all do' as an implied form of justification.

examples?

This is where conversations often go off the rails.... One person's 'implied' is often another person's 'inferred'. Speaking for myself, I have often suggested things that I believe would allow conversations amongst opposing parties (not anyone on this forum, but mostly 'the left' and 'the right') to move forward, and been met with the charge that I was somehow justifying someone's actions. Or speculation on 'how someone might have felt', which may be a justification in THEIR minds, but it doesn't mean it is one in mine. Those 'how someone might have felt' were often in response to others similarly speculating on why someone did something.

Even fairly objective things like 'he's done this before' are not dispositive and do not rule out other impetus.... so barring a double blind peer reviewed study, even 'objective criteria' can be only PART of the cause/reason/difference.

A&M is an extremely conservative University by public school standards... and schools like Liberty who might do things like this would be dismissed as religious zealots or what have you... so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.... but wrong is still wrong. It's not wrong because it is 'right' (politically)... it is wrong because like many other examples, it is unjust.

(07-27-2023 10:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is a big difference between objective criteria based comparison with data, and an attempt to deflect 'the same actions you all do' as an implied form of justification.

examples?

This is where conversations often go off the rails.... One person's 'implied' is often another person's 'inferred'. Speaking for myself, I have often suggested things that I believe would allow conversations amongst opposing parties (not anyone on this forum, but mostly 'the left' and 'the right') to move forward, and been met with the charge that I was somehow justifying someone's actions. Or speculation on 'how someone might have felt', which may be a justification in THEIR minds, but it doesn't mean it is one in mine. Those 'how someone might have felt' were often in response to others similarly speculating on why someone did something.

Even fairly objective things like 'he's done this before' are not dispositive and do not rule out other impetus.... so barring a double blind peer reviewed study, even 'objective criteria' can be only PART of the cause/reason/difference.

A&M is an extremely conservative University by public school standards... and schools like Liberty who might do things like this would be dismissed as religious zealots or what have you... so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.... but wrong is still wrong. It's not wrong because it is 'right' (politically)... it is wrong because like many other examples, it is unjust.

IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions. I think that is far, far worse as it has a literal chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials.

The **** up from A&M on the failed journalism hire is more in line with A&M leaning right.

I agree that both instances are wrong. But I think there is an important and notable distinction.

(07-27-2023 10:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is a big difference between objective criteria based comparison with data, and an attempt to deflect 'the same actions you all do' as an implied form of justification.

examples?

This is where conversations often go off the rails.... One person's 'implied' is often another person's 'inferred'. Speaking for myself, I have often suggested things that I believe would allow conversations amongst opposing parties (not anyone on this forum, but mostly 'the left' and 'the right') to move forward, and been met with the charge that I was somehow justifying someone's actions. Or speculation on 'how someone might have felt', which may be a justification in THEIR minds, but it doesn't mean it is one in mine. Those 'how someone might have felt' were often in response to others similarly speculating on why someone did something.

Even fairly objective things like 'he's done this before' are not dispositive and do not rule out other impetus.... so barring a double blind peer reviewed study, even 'objective criteria' can be only PART of the cause/reason/difference.

A&M is an extremely conservative University by public school standards... and schools like Liberty who might do things like this would be dismissed as religious zealots or what have you... so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.... but wrong is still wrong. It's not wrong because it is 'right' (politically)... it is wrong because like many other examples, it is unjust.

Agree there is lots of room for this discussion to go off the rails - but I hope less room whenever the discussion is between two calm individuals who sincerely want to discuss the topic.

Whaddabout, to me, is a legitimate logic tool, but like any other tool, it can be misused. Where, how, why, and by whom are the questions.

One thig it points out is precedent. Lately we have had many on the left upset because the precedent of decades of RVW was upset, as if there was a time limit to do things right. None of them seemed to be upset that the 58 year precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson was upset in 1954.

When a pattern of malfeasance or special (good or bad) treatment is pointed out, that seems to me to be a legitimate use of Whaddabout. The normal reaction politically is "yeah but when we did it, our guys wore white hats. Your guys wear black hats. Therefore it is not the same, we're right and you're wrong, and stop bringing up this "whaddaboutism."

I think with the Hunter/Hillary examples, we see a pattern of especially good treatment. With the actions against Trump, we see a pattern of especially bad treatment. Unequal treatment under the law , especial based on political affiliation, is I think bad. JMHO.

Another example is the unequal treatment of rioters/protesters, depending on what they were protesting. I believe in treating everybody the same, which some people regard as racist (I don't). I also believe that if we truly are to be a nation of laws, we must treat everybody the same, whether a former President or a sitting President or a SecState or a 40 year Senator. Until we do, the equality under the law is just a rallying cry for one side or another.

Thanks Ham, for the civil discussion.

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions. I think that is far, far worse as it has a literal chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials.

The **** up from A&M on the failed journalism hire is more in line with A&M leaning right.

I agree that both instances are wrong. But I think there is an important and notable distinction.

I think your summary of the A&M position fits the narrative that you appear to want to tell... because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

A&M generally leans right.... and I disagree with your assessment that criticism of politicians is often a stance regarding their values or policy positions.

As alluded to though, I wonder if you find it similarly chilling when people are referred to as 'threats to democracy' or even 'domestic terrorists' because they disagree with leftists politicians and their policies and positions?

The best example recently might be that people who question whether or not men can get pregnant are often accused of inciting violence against trans men and denying their existence.... when the simple reality is that their existence is not in any way denied... merely that they are 'men'.

(07-27-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2023 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is a big difference between objective criteria based comparison with data, and an attempt to deflect 'the same actions you all do' as an implied form of justification.

examples?

Here are some things that are examples of each:


#1

Assertion: Men on average are paid 125% cents of an average woman's salary in the workforce.
Response: What about a woman deciding to actually curtail a profession to raise a kid? I.e, women suffer from the averaging game because many women choose to either stop working during child rearing years, or cut back to 'contract' status to fill in empty cycles in those years.

In short, the response is 'whatabout the fact that women tend to pare back work more than men in middle career years.'

#2

Assertion: the evidence looks dicey for Trump in the MAL case.
Response: What about Hillary [Hunter, Joe, or any number of items that can be ascertained as either a deflection or an example of hypocrisy.}

(07-27-2023 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions.

because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

Your earlier statement ---

Quote:so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.

Which incident does 'this' above refer to, Ham? The journalism or the issue re: SOH Patrick and the lecturer? Or some other item?

You might not have been as clear as you intended. As such, Lad's comment is actually a reasonable inference. And if the 'this' above actually refers to Patrick and the lecturer, he would be correct that you are implying it -- in fact in that case the 'this' would be a direct substitution for the incident itself, which goes a lot further than just implying it.

(07-27-2023 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions. I think that is far, far worse as it has a literal chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials.

The **** up from A&M on the failed journalism hire is more in line with A&M leaning right.

I agree that both instances are wrong. But I think there is an important and notable distinction.

I think your summary of the A&M position fits the narrative that you appear to want to tell... because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

A&M generally leans right.... and I disagree with your assessment that criticism of politicians is often a stance regarding their values or policy positions.

As alluded to though, I wonder if you find it similarly chilling when people are referred to as 'threats to democracy' or even 'domestic terrorists' because they disagree with leftists politicians and their policies and positions?

The best example recently might be that people who question whether or not men can get pregnant are often accused of inciting violence against trans men and denying their existence.... when the simple reality is that their existence is not in any way denied... merely that they are 'men'.

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote - for starters, I don’t disagree that A&M leans right.

Also, I didnt say, and don’t believe, that criticism of politicians is often a stance regarding their values/policy positions. Ironically, that was exactly the point you missed - that these two recent news events represent two different responses from A&M, both of which were wrong. The difference to me, is that the Patrick criticism isn’t related to A&M’s political leanings, but rather bowing to outside political pressure in response to the criticism of a political figure. It was not related to a professor taking a stance on a policy or educational perspective that is liberal/not conservative.

Can you tell me what narrative I want to tell?

Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

(07-27-2023 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions.

because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

Your earlier statement ---

Quote:so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.

Which incident does 'this' above refer to, Ham? The journalism or the issue re: SOH Patrick and the lecturer? Or some other item?

You might not have been as clear as you intended. As such, Lad's comment is actually a reasonable inference. And if the 'this' above actually refers to Patrick and the lecturer, he would be correct that you are implying it -- in fact in that case the 'this' would be a direct substitution for the incident itself, which goes a lot further than just implying it.

Tanq gets it.

Here is the quote I was responding to:

A&M is an extremely conservative University by public school standards... and schools like Liberty who might do things like this would be dismissed as religious zealots or what have you... so this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.... but wrong is still wrong. It's not wrong because it is 'right' (politically)... it is wrong because like many other examples, it is unjust.

When I read the bolded part, I understood the statement to be referring to Joy Alonzo being put on leave after reportedly making a comment critical of Patrick because that is the topic of the thread. I did not assume it was related to the failed hiring of the journalism professor.

I think they're both instances of the university retaliating against professors for their speech/opinions. I find this example of a politician abusing their power very troubling.

(07-27-2023 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions. I think that is far, far worse as it has a literal chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials.

The **** up from A&M on the failed journalism hire is more in line with A&M leaning right.

I agree that both instances are wrong. But I think there is an important and notable distinction.

I think your summary of the A&M position fits the narrative that you appear to want to tell... because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

A&M generally leans right.... and I disagree with your assessment that criticism of politicians is often a stance regarding their values or policy positions.

As alluded to though, I wonder if you find it similarly chilling when people are referred to as 'threats to democracy' or even 'domestic terrorists' because they disagree with leftists politicians and their policies and positions?

The best example recently might be that people who question whether or not men can get pregnant are often accused of inciting violence against trans men and denying their existence.... when the simple reality is that their existence is not in any way denied... merely that they are 'men'.

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote - for starters, I don’t disagree that A&M leans right.

Here is what you wrote.

Quote:IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing.

Of course they did... because as you admit, they do. Instead of accepting THIS as the reason for what they did, you chose a different narrative. You said...

Quote:They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions.

That seems to me to be the narrative that you want to present. NOT that they are a right leaning school who punished someone who criticized a politician over their values or policy positions, but one where it was apparently 'personal'... because I can't really think of any reason to 'retaliate' against someone for their speech other than for their values or policy positions reflected in that speech.

Quote: The difference to me, is that the Patrick criticism isn’t related to A&M’s political leanings, but rather bowing to outside political pressure in response to the criticism of a political figure. It was not related to a professor taking a stance on a policy or educational perspective that is liberal/not conservative.

This is precisely what I thought you meant... but to me they are really just two sides of the same coin. Universities face all sorts of pressures... from governments, donors, students, professors etc.... and they react to them as they see fit. MOST Universities fairly consistently side with the liberal perspective from each and every one of those constituencies... with Liberty being a notable exception, and A&M being to the right of most public Universities.

I believe they are wrong because it is wrong... and not that they are wrong because they are retaliating against someone because of 'outside pressure'.

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power? Note that even after the decision, the administration was still able to forgive SOME loan debt... and also that had there been a law passed allowing his actions, he could have done it as well... but that the law he was trying to use was a significant over-reach of the intent of that law.

(07-27-2023 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here is the quote I was responding to:

this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.

When I read the bolded part, I understood the statement to be referring to Joy Alonzo being put on leave after reportedly making a comment critical of Patrick because that is the topic of the thread. I did not assume it was related to the failed hiring of the journalism professor.

While I may have not been clear, your interpretation does not come from my lack of clarity... because my words still have meaning... and by definition, they do not mean what you apparently inferred.

'many of these issues' and one of these two issues are not the same things

Quote:I think they're both instances of the university retaliating against professors for their speech/opinions. I find this example of a politician abusing their power very troubling.

So was it the University retaliating, or the politician abusing?? I think they're both instances that are in direct conflict with what more frequently happens on college campuses... where as an example, Right-wing speakers are begrudgingly allowed to speak to groups, but the University fails to provide for their safety or to discipline students who 'go too far' in their protestation.... I saw some of this first hand at Berkeley... with politicians there equally complicit... and have seen/heard about it in other places. They are just as wrong as I said... but I don't recall many liberals being concerned about the abuse of power there.

(07-27-2023 03:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing. They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions. I think that is far, far worse as it has a literal chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials.

The **** up from A&M on the failed journalism hire is more in line with A&M leaning right.

I agree that both instances are wrong. But I think there is an important and notable distinction.

I think your summary of the A&M position fits the narrative that you appear to want to tell... because you've said it now at least twice. I think this is a perfect example of you inferring something you think I implied.

A&M generally leans right.... and I disagree with your assessment that criticism of politicians is often a stance regarding their values or policy positions.

As alluded to though, I wonder if you find it similarly chilling when people are referred to as 'threats to democracy' or even 'domestic terrorists' because they disagree with leftists politicians and their policies and positions?

The best example recently might be that people who question whether or not men can get pregnant are often accused of inciting violence against trans men and denying their existence.... when the simple reality is that their existence is not in any way denied... merely that they are 'men'.

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote - for starters, I don’t disagree that A&M leans right.

Here is what you wrote.

Quote:IMO, the issue with your comment above is it suggests that A&M leaned right - they did no such thing.

Of course they did... because as you admit, they do. Instead of accepting THIS as the reason for what they did, you chose a different narrative. You said...

Quote:They retaliated based on an apparent criticism of a politician, not on a stance regarding liberal values or policy positions.

That seems to me to be the narrative that you want to present. NOT that they are a right leaning school who punished someone who criticized a politician over their values or policy positions, but one where it was apparently 'personal'... because I can't really think of any reason to 'retaliate' against someone for their speech other than for their values or policy positions reflected in that speech.

Quote: The difference to me, is that the Patrick criticism isn’t related to A&M’s political leanings, but rather bowing to outside political pressure in response to the criticism of a political figure. It was not related to a professor taking a stance on a policy or educational perspective that is liberal/not conservative.

This is precisely what I thought you meant... but to me they are really just two sides of the same coin. Universities face all sorts of pressures... from governments, donors, students, professors etc.... and they react to them as they see fit. MOST Universities fairly consistently side with the liberal perspective from each and every one of those constituencies... with Liberty being a notable exception, and A&M being to the right of most public Universities.

I believe they are wrong because it is wrong... and not that they are wrong because they are retaliating against someone because of 'outside pressure'.

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power? Note that even after the decision, the administration was still able to forgive SOME loan debt... and also that had there been a law passed allowing his actions, he could have done it as well... but that the law he was trying to use was a significant over-reach of the intent of that law.

(07-27-2023 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here is the quote I was responding to:

this is really the first significant example of academia leaning right on many of these issues.

When I read the bolded part, I understood the statement to be referring to Joy Alonzo being put on leave after reportedly making a comment critical of Patrick because that is the topic of the thread. I did not assume it was related to the failed hiring of the journalism professor.

While I may have not been clear, your interpretation does not come from my lack of clarity... because my words still have meaning... and by definition, they do not mean what you apparently inferred.

'many of these issues' and one of these two issues are not the same things

Quote:I think they're both instances of the university retaliating against professors for their speech/opinions. I find this example of a politician abusing their power very troubling.

So was it the University retaliating, or the politician abusing?? I think they're both instances that are in direct conflict with what more frequently happens on college campuses... where as an example, Right-wing speakers are begrudgingly allowed to speak to groups, but the University fails to provide for their safety or to discipline students who 'go too far' in their protestation.... I saw some of this first hand at Berkeley... with politicians there equally complicit... and have seen/heard about it in other places. They are just as wrong as I said... but I don't recall many liberals being concerned about the abuse of power there.

I’m at a loss - what do you think happened in this situation? It legitimately feels like we are talking about two different issues because you are telling me I’m forming a narrative that I want to present, when I am just repeating what is being reported.

And to the bolded - I don’t want to get into arguments over semantics. That line was meant to convey that both instances I’ve spoken of are instances of the university acting against an academic for “speech.” Retaliating implied something that was not meant to be implied. You seem keen on arguing about the use of my word “retaliating,” and I’ve not meant to imply what you’re reading into.

But if you want to chalk up both incidents being discussed to the university being conservative, that’s your prerogative. I find that to be an odd position to want to take, frankly, but you do you.

(07-27-2023 04:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m at a loss - what do you think happened in this situation? It legitimately feels like we are talking about two different issues because you are telling me I’m forming a narrative that I want to present, when I am just repeating what is being reported.

I am not really talking about these events in specific.... That is sort of the point I'm making.... I am mostly suggesting that 'what is reported' is often a perspective... You seem to be describing 'retaliation' and what I'm saying is that it is functionally identical to things that have happened the other direction... that weren't described as retaliation or 'abuse of power'. The difference is merely which side someone is on, and therefore what is alleged. What you see as an abuse of power, someone else might see as 'reflecting the will of the electorate'.

Quote:And to the bolded - I don’t want to get into arguments over semantics. That line was meant to convey that both instances I’ve spoken of are instances of the university acting against an academic for “speech.” Retaliating implied something that was not meant to be implied. You seem keen on arguing about the use of my word “retaliating,” and I’ve not meant to imply what you’re reading into.

That's fair and it happens. i can only respond to what I read... and it seemed that you were implying 'retaliation', because you used that word. I guess when the police pull you over, they are retaliating for you speeding, right?

Quote:But if you want to chalk up both incidents being discussed to the university being conservative, that’s your prerogative. I find that to be an odd position to want to take, frankly, but you do you.

I hate it when people admit that what someone responded to was something they said, but didn't intend... and yet then somehow turn it around and assign something to the other person that they neither intended NOR said.

But you do you.


I said (paraphrasing) they were conservative and attempting to promote conservative values... much in the same way that liberals promote liberal values... SOMETIMES they get it wrong.... but this whole 'threat to democracy' stuff is just a bit overboard IMO. What they did is no more a threat than all of the liberal schools who go overboard in the other direction.... and there are a lot more of them.

(07-27-2023 06:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 04:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m at a loss - what do you think happened in this situation? It legitimately feels like we are talking about two different issues because you are telling me I’m forming a narrative that I want to present, when I am just repeating what is being reported.

I am not really talking about these events in specific.... That is sort of the point I'm making.... I am mostly suggesting that 'what is reported' is often a perspective... You seem to be describing 'retaliation' and what I'm saying is that it is functionally identical to things that have happened the other direction... that weren't described as retaliation or 'abuse of power'. The difference is merely which side someone is on, and therefore what is alleged. What you see as an abuse of power, someone else might see as 'reflecting the will of the electorate'.

Quote:And to the bolded - I don’t want to get into arguments over semantics. That line was meant to convey that both instances I’ve spoken of are instances of the university acting against an academic for “speech.” Retaliating implied something that was not meant to be implied. You seem keen on arguing about the use of my word “retaliating,” and I’ve not meant to imply what you’re reading into.

That's fair and it happens. i can only respond to what I read... and it seemed that you were implying 'retaliation', because you used that word. I guess when the police pull you over, they are retaliating for you speeding, right?

Quote:But if you want to chalk up both incidents being discussed to the university being conservative, that’s your prerogative. I find that to be an odd position to want to take, frankly, but you do you.

I hate it when people admit that what someone responded to was something they said, but didn't intend... and yet then somehow turn it around and assign something to the other person that they neither intended NOR said.

But you do you.


I said (paraphrasing) they were conservative and attempting to promote conservative values... much in the same way that liberals promote liberal values... SOMETIMES they get it wrong.... but this whole 'threat to democracy' stuff is just a bit overboard IMO. What they did is no more a threat than all of the liberal schools who go overboard in the other direction.... and there are a lot more of them.

And I hate it when someone speaks about a specific incident but is apparently speaking about generalized incidents and not the one being discussed here…

Ironically, to your last paragraph, that’s still a characterization of this specific issue that I don’t think fits with the facts. I don’t remember us discussing a conservative professor being fired for criticizing Biden or a liberal governor.

The equivalent issue is what happened to the journalism teacher, where the “politics” of what she taught resulted in a failed hire.

Side note: you hate it when people admit that they spoke inaccurately? What would you prefer, for me to double down and tell you that you were wrong? Can’t win for trying here!

Quote:

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power?

I dont think the generalized public got on to the phone, and called Biden, and threatened him or his administration in some manner.

The context that I think lad is pursuing is *one* very powerful person getting wind of a comment (a comment so innocuous that no one seems to remember exactly what it it was), and 'making the call' to specifically target that one person. To get her suspended and reprimanded.

That is a specific abuse of power that specifically targets one person. I dont think your generalization to 'political power' in the general sense is quite on point with reference to the issue that lad is attempting to make.

(07-27-2023 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power?

I dont think the generalized public got on to the phone, and called Biden, and threatened him or his administration in some manner.

The context that I think lad is pursuing is *one* very powerful person getting wind of a comment (a comment so innocuous that no one seems to remember exactly what it it was), and 'making the call' to specifically target that one person. To get her suspended and reprimanded.

That is a specific abuse of power that specifically targets one person. I dont think your generalization to 'political power' in the general sense is quite on point with reference to the issue that lad is attempting to make.

Glad the Amigo Meeting Talking Points stuck!

I’m honestly amazed at how I so clearly and also unclearly expressed myself.

I didn’t think this would be a controversial opinion to take - that a politician abusing their power wasn’t indicative of a universities political leanings.

(07-27-2023 07:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power?

I dont think the generalized public got on to the phone, and called Biden, and threatened him or his administration in some manner.

The context that I think lad is pursuing is *one* very powerful person getting wind of a comment (a comment so innocuous that no one seems to remember exactly what it it was), and 'making the call' to specifically target that one person. To get her suspended and reprimanded.

That is a specific abuse of power that specifically targets one person. I dont think your generalization to 'political power' in the general sense is quite on point with reference to the issue that lad is attempting to make.

Glad the Amigo Meeting Talking Points stuck!

I’m honestly amazed at how I so clearly and also unclearly expressed myself.

I didn’t think this would be a controversial opinion to take - that a politician abusing their power wasn’t indicative of a universities political leanings.

I think Ham is on point that the journalism fiasco *does* reach to the school's political leanings.

But I dont think that having the Grand Poobah of the Texas Government calling the University to can a lecturer he got peeved at necessarily goes to the political leanings of the school. Nor a story in the 'Great Political Issues Emanating from Academia' that are common these days. It is an issue that mainly goes to an asshat politician that strong armed a university to one person fired -- over a comment that is so incendiary that no one seems to know what it was. The smaller remainder goes to a school that apparenlly must act on Patrick's personal behest on the matter.

A simple thought experiment is illustrative -- simply change aTm to Texas Southern. I would grant you that if Patrick called TSU to express displeasure (and probably with a veiled threat to the school for good measure), TSU might easily have done the same thing to the lecturer. And TSU is *far* from a right leaning bastion of conservatism.

I can see the distinct differences you put forth. And, I can note why you might have made the inference that you did from Ham's comments. Those comments could easily be taken in the manner that you did.

Nothing bad, nor good about that subject, nor is there any slight directed in any manner. I am sure I have many times written items that could be implied to read in other ways and manners than I had intended.

(07-27-2023 07:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:Edit: I just want to clarify. I think the suspension of the lecturer is not an issue of a university being left leaning or right leaning, it’s an issue of a university caving to political pressure and for a politician severely overstepping their bounds. It, to me, is an issue that transcends politics because of its clear connection to an abuse of power.

So you mean like the Biden administration caving to political pressure to 'erase student loan debt' is an abuse of power?

I dont think the generalized public got on to the phone, and called Biden, and threatened him or his administration in some manner.

The context that I think lad is pursuing is *one* very powerful person getting wind of a comment (a comment so innocuous that no one seems to remember exactly what it it was), and 'making the call' to specifically target that one person. To get her suspended and reprimanded.

That is a specific abuse of power that specifically targets one person. I dont think your generalization to 'political power' in the general sense is quite on point with reference to the issue that lad is attempting to make.

Glad the Amigo Meeting Talking Points stuck!

I’m honestly amazed at how I so clearly and also unclearly expressed myself.

I didn’t think this would be a controversial opinion to take - that a politician abusing their power wasn’t indicative of a universities political leanings.

I think Ham is on point that the journalism fiasco *does* reach to the school's political leanings.

But I dont think that having the Grand Poobah of the Texas Government calling the University to can a lecturer he got peeved at necessarily goes to the political leanings of the school. Nor a story in the 'Great Political Issues Emanating from Academia' that are common these days. It is an issue that mainly goes to an asshat politician that strong armed a university to one person fired -- over a comment that is so incendiary that no one seems to know what it was. The smaller remainder goes to a school that apparenlly must act on Patrick's personal behest on the matter.

A simple thought experiment is illustrative -- simply change aTm to Texas Southern. I would grant you that if Patrick called TSU to express displeasure (and probably with a veiled threat to the school for good measure), TSU might easily have done the same thing to the lecturer. And TSU is *far* from a right leaning bastion of conservatism.

I can see the distinct differences you put forth. And, I can note why you might have made the inference that you did from Ham's comments. Those comments could easily be taken in the manner that you did.

Nothing bad, nor good about that subject, nor is there any slight directed in any manner. I am sure I have many times written items that could be implied to read in other ways and manners than I had intended.

And I agree with that point too, which I was trying to articulate. Quality of articulation TBD.

These two items for A&M, occurring back to back, may have an impact on faculty recruitment for high quality new faculty and more senior faculty. But maybe not. Academics are odd people.

(07-27-2023 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I hate it when someone speaks about a specific incident but is apparently speaking about generalized incidents and not the one being discussed here…

Something I absolutely did not do. You quoted me.... I said...

'things like this'.

I am clearly speaking about 'things like this' and not 'this specific incident' as you try and frame me above.

By 'things like this' I mean decisions clearly impacted/influenced by political leanings and events.... Decisions made by Universities, often supported quite vocally by politicians... like the ones where biologically intact males who are trans are to shower with their biological opposites.... and the biological opposites have no say in that.... where even free speech is sometimes rescinded as an op ed piece being removed from the student newspaper or as I suggested, speakers who are not protected from assault and charges are never filed against their assaulters.

These are fundamentally political issues... and whether they are 'retaliation' or simply 'wrong decisions' is similarly often a matter of perspective and not any meaningful differences between them.

Quote:Ironically, to your last paragraph, that’s still a characterization of this specific issue that I don’t think fits with the facts. I don’t remember us discussing a conservative professor being fired for criticizing Biden or a liberal governor.

Hence 'like these' and not 'this'. Pretty obvious.

You will almost never have similar enough issues to make the sort of comparison that you are trying to make here because the priorities and policies of the two parties... not to mention the prevalence of liberal thought vs conservative in academia is so different.... particularly in public universities

Quote:Side note: you hate it when people admit that they spoke inaccurately? What would you prefer, for me to double down and tell you that you were wrong? Can’t win for trying here!

Intentional misquote... and you know it. The statement was essentially... I hate it when people say something correct, and then immediately blow it up with their next words. For you to take that and imply that I said 'I hate it when people say something correct' is just a flat out lie.

(07-28-2023 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I hate it when someone speaks about a specific incident but is apparently speaking about generalized incidents and not the one being discussed here…

Something I absolutely did not do. You quoted me.... I said...

'things like this'.

I am clearly speaking about 'things like this' and not 'this specific incident' as you try and frame me above.

By 'things like this' I mean decisions clearly impacted/influenced by political leanings and events.... Decisions made by Universities, often supported quite vocally by politicians... like the ones where biologically intact males who are trans are to shower with their biological opposites.... and the biological opposites have no say in that.... where even free speech is sometimes rescinded as an op ed piece being removed from the student newspaper or as I suggested, speakers who are not protected from assault and charges are never filed against their assaulters.

These are fundamentally political issues... and whether they are 'retaliation' or simply 'wrong decisions' is similarly often a matter of perspective and not any meaningful differences between them.

Quote:Ironically, to your last paragraph, that’s still a characterization of this specific issue that I don’t think fits with the facts. I don’t remember us discussing a conservative professor being fired for criticizing Biden or a liberal governor.

Hence 'like these' and not 'this'. Pretty obvious.

You will almost never have similar enough issues to make the sort of comparison that you are trying to make here because the priorities and policies of the two parties... not to mention the prevalence of liberal thought vs conservative in academia is so different.... particularly in public universities

Quote:Side note: you hate it when people admit that they spoke inaccurately? What would you prefer, for me to double down and tell you that you were wrong? Can’t win for trying here!

Intentional misquote... and you know it. The statement was essentially... I hate it when people say something correct, and then immediately blow it up with their next words. For you to take that and imply that I said 'I hate it when people say something correct' is just a flat out lie.

Seriously? You're seriously trying to argue that "things like this" and "this" are materially different? How am I supposed to know that when you say "things like this" you actually mean "things somewhat related to this, but not actually like this, just adjacent to this"???

I'm trying to respond to what you're typing. And when you say "things like this" I assume the "this" refers to the topic of the thread, which is a lecturer being fired for apparently criticizing Dan Patrick.

Oh wait, maybe I get it now. Were you using "like" to mean "similar"? Or "like" to mean "such as"? I took this to mean "such as" and not "similar," hence my reply.



As to the last point, it's not an intentional misquote. You said "I hate it when people admit that what someone responded to was something they said, but didn't intend... "

So if I say something inarticulately, what am I supposed to do - double down on the lack of clarity? With you I have harped repeatedly about how this board is not a great means for communication, and this is one reason why. I didn't intend for it to communicate what it did, and unfortunately you spent the time responding to something I wrote that wasn't clear. In that instance, I'm very willing to take the blame for that, yet here you are, hating that I'm telling you that I caused a misunderstanding with what I wrote.