Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story

Topic:  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
Author
Message
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 2,476

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/24/2022 4:47:36 PM 
cbus cat fan wrote:
When you lose the New York Times, you know you have an electoral problem. Below is their editorial on Free Speech and Cancel Culture. Numerous polls have pointed out that across the board many Americans have a problem with Cancel Culture. The Ann Selzer poll has some interesting takes. I believe Nate Silver gives the Selzer poll the highest rating. Americans remember what happend to Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Sandman etc. They also remember the myriad of conservatives who were banned from Social Media platforms, while no such thing happened to the other side. Trying to pretend it does not exist only hastens the November shellacking (to quote President Obama.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture...
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1506676547616493568


This article makes the exact point I made -- that the threats to free speech are coming from both sides of the aisle.

That people keeping lining up to insist it's a problem that only exists from one side or the other just shows how intellectually bankrupt Americans have become.

Cancel culture is bad. Using the legislature to punish speech you don't like is also bad.

See how easy that is?
Back to Top
  
cbus cat fan
General User

Member Since: 12/2/2011
Post Count: 1,153

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/24/2022 8:50:06 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
cbus cat fan wrote:
When you lose the New York Times, you know you have an electoral problem. Below is their editorial on Free Speech and Cancel Culture. Numerous polls have pointed out that across the board many Americans have a problem with Cancel Culture. The Ann Selzer poll has some interesting takes. I believe Nate Silver gives the Selzer poll the highest rating. Americans remember what happend to Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Sandman etc. They also remember the myriad of conservatives who were banned from Social Media platforms, while no such thing happened to the other side. Trying to pretend it does not exist only hastens the November shellacking (to quote President Obama.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture...
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1506676547616493568


This article makes the exact point I made -- that the threats to free speech are coming from both sides of the aisle.

That people keeping lining up to insist it's a problem that only exists from one side or the other just shows how intellectually bankrupt Americans have become.

Cancel culture is bad. Using the legislature to punish speech you don't like is also bad.

See how easy that is?


Here's how easy it is (with regard to saying the Left gets cancelled too.) This is somewhat akin to someone in Atlanta telling someone in Buffalo they know all about winter weather simply because Atlanta may get one or two ice or snow storms a year. Yet, the frequency and duration compared to Buffalo is so miniscule that it should barely be mentioned.

Last Edited: 3/24/2022 10:17:09 PM by cbus cat fan

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 2,476

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/25/2022 5:36:03 AM 
cbus cat fan wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
cbus cat fan wrote:
When you lose the New York Times, you know you have an electoral problem. Below is their editorial on Free Speech and Cancel Culture. Numerous polls have pointed out that across the board many Americans have a problem with Cancel Culture. The Ann Selzer poll has some interesting takes. I believe Nate Silver gives the Selzer poll the highest rating. Americans remember what happend to Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Sandman etc. They also remember the myriad of conservatives who were banned from Social Media platforms, while no such thing happened to the other side. Trying to pretend it does not exist only hastens the November shellacking (to quote President Obama.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture...
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1506676547616493568


This article makes the exact point I made -- that the threats to free speech are coming from both sides of the aisle.

That people keeping lining up to insist it's a problem that only exists from one side or the other just shows how intellectually bankrupt Americans have become.

Cancel culture is bad. Using the legislature to punish speech you don't like is also bad.

See how easy that is?


Here's how easy it is (with regard to saying the Left gets cancelled too.) This is somewhat akin to someone in Atlanta telling someone in Buffalo they know all about winter weather simply because Atlanta may get one or two ice or snow storms a year. Yet, the frequency and duration compared to Buffalo is so miniscule that it should barely be mentioned.



Cancel culture is not the threat either I or the New York Times cited as coming from the Right.

The real threat from the right, as I've pointed out multiple times, comes through legislation that attempts to silence speech they don't like. I've cited a half dozen examples. The Times editorial you yourself posted makes the same point.

Just hilarious how tribal and intellectually broken the country is. There are obvious threats to free speech from all sides, and all anybody is willing to do is insist it's one sided.

I'll give you this though: at least you own your partisanship and aren't hypocritical enough to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes and delude yourself into thinking you're a free speech absolutist.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 12,187

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/26/2022 12:04:02 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
I'll give you this though: at least you own your partisanship and aren't hypocritical enough to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes and delude yourself into thinking you're a free speech absolutist.


As I said, you are not worth getting into a long debate with because of your passive/aggressive nature and your utter arrogance, as evidence by your quote above. However, I'll cite one example of the NYT's and your misuse of parallelism: The NYT article in its attempt to be "fair" made an incorrect comparison, as did you, at least by implication, between things like the Florida law, which is aimed in part at keeping young children (particularly grade school kids) from being exposed to concepts that they are too young to understand and that would confuse their own developing gender identity, and actual cancel culture as practiced by those on the left. It's unfair, for instance, to compare that Florida law with BLM's attempts to try to silence all disagreement on a college campus, as has happened on several occasions.

Another major aspect of the Florida bill is to keep parents rather than school officials in charge of educating their children on sexual issues. Where attendance is compulsory, and there is a power imbalance between teacher and student, we are not looking at a free and open marketplace of ideas. I believe that Douglas, though perhaps not Black, would agree that the Florida law is not suppressing free speech but rather helping to insure that children are protected and that parental rights are maintained.

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope. You have probably only looked at third-party interpretations of the law. I also suspect that that's also true of many of your other assertions, which I have no inclination to review one-by-one because debating you on BA, where I come for sports information about my beloved OHIO Bobcats, is not high on my priority list.

If you want to read an official summary as well as the full the text of the Florida law, they are here:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1834/?Tab=Bill...

So, since I know you love my poetic waxing, here's another one for you:

“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Our goal is to make the debate on these issues "free and open" which cancel culture tries to deny. If we do manage to have this kind of free and open debate in our nation, regardless of the subject, we will have nothing to worry about. If we don't allow unfettered debate things will go to hell in handbasket.

Now back to OHIO athletics! Go Bobcats!


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 2,476

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/26/2022 6:41:10 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
I'll give you this though: at least you own your partisanship and aren't hypocritical enough to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes and delude yourself into thinking you're a free speech absolutist.


As I said, you are not worth getting into a long debate with because of your passive/aggressive nature and your utter arrogance, as evidence by your quote above. However, I'll cite one example of the NYT's and your misuse of parallelism: The NYT article in its attempt to be "fair" made an incorrect comparison, as did you, at least by implication, between things like the Florida law, which is aimed in part at keeping young children (particularly grade school kids) from being exposed to concepts that they are too young to understand and that would confuse their own developing gender identity, and actual cancel culture as practiced by those on the left. It's unfair, for instance, to compare that Florida law with BLM's attempts to try to silence all disagreement on a college campus, as has happened on several occasions.

Another major aspect of the Florida bill is to keep parents rather than school officials in charge of educating their children on sexual issues. Where attendance is compulsory, and there is a power imbalance between teacher and student, we are not looking at a free and open marketplace of ideas. I believe that Douglas, though perhaps not Black, would agree that the Florida law is not suppressing free speech but rather helping to insure that children are protected and that parental rights are maintained.

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope. You have probably only looked at third-party interpretations of the law. I also suspect that that's also true of many of your other assertions, which I have no inclination to review one-by-one because debating you on BA, where I come for sports information about my beloved OHIO Bobcats, is not high on my priority list.

If you want to read an official summary as well as the full the text of the Florida law, they are here:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1834/?Tab=Bill...

So, since I know you love my poetic waxing, here's another one for you:

“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Our goal is to make the debate on these issues "free and open" which cancel culture tries to deny. If we do manage to have this kind of free and open debate in our nation, regardless of the subject, we will have nothing to worry about. If we don't allow unfettered debate things will go to hell in handbasket.

Now back to OHIO athletics! Go Bobcats!


It's not passive aggression. I'm quite frank with you. I think you're a hypocrite and completely feckless on this subject. You state ideals and lecture others but the ideals you support are fully inconsistent with the ideals you think you embody. Intellectually, I no longer consider you a person capable of any introspection or unbiased analysis. Regardless of who you quote. I've told you this before. I'm telling you again. There's nothing passive about that.

You're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the very obvious truth that both extremes of the American political spectrum threaten the first amendment. Partisanship has broken your brain.

Instead of considering the possibility that both parties might play a role in this, your response is to assume I haven't read a bill, assume I'm misinformed, and then state your refusal to examine other examples for that reason. Intellectually dishonest to it's core. You can't defend those things, and you know it. So you've convinced yourself you don't need to and decided your view here is beyond reproach.

All because you aren't capable of entertaining the possibility that a political party that just flirted awfully hard with overturning a Democratic election might also have some state level representatives with damaging views of the First Amendment.

You're not a free speech absolutist. You're a partisan hack who thinks free speech is a noble concept, but one that's less central to your identity than your partisanship. And now that those two things are in obvious conflict with one another, you've chosen partisanship, and are too much of a coward to examine your own inconsistencies.

Or have you forgotten that everybody here knows whine to the mods to try and get people banned when you don't like what they have to say? All while insisting the most important ideas to defend are the ones you hate, and that you're a proponent of unfettered access to ideas. You don't have to look hard to see the hypocrisy.

As for this:

OhioCatFan wrote:

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope.


This is a very poor interpretation of the law's scope and a fundamental misunderstanding of how good legislation's written. The bill prohibits a "school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary levels in a way that is age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate" but fails to define what is considered age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate.

The result is that it becomes vague and broad and results in limiting what ideas teachers can include in their curriculum and openly discuss without providing any specific guidance or definition. It's a law that's almost certain to be over-turned as unconstitutional -- the Supreme Court has previously ruled that any statute governing classroom speech "must not be so vague that people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application". And when it's over-turned, it will be over-turned because it's in direct conflict with the First Amendment. This isn't hard or controversial. Rational, reasonable people can and do acknowledge this.

A true First Amendment absolutist wouldn't be lining up to defend an overly broad, undefined legislative restriction on a local school board and teachers. If the law was reversed, and stated that a local school boards HAD to teach sexuality and gender, you wouldn't support it. And you'd be right. So how do you support the inverse without being a blatant hypocrite?



Last Edited: 3/26/2022 8:43:01 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Turdhats
General User

Member Since: 12/19/2006
Location: Circleville, OH
Post Count: 39

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 3/26/2022 12:38:39 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
I'll give you this though: at least you own your partisanship and aren't hypocritical enough to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes and delude yourself into thinking you're a free speech absolutist.


As I said, you are not worth getting into a long debate with because of your passive/aggressive nature and your utter arrogance, as evidence by your quote above. However, I'll cite one example of the NYT's and your misuse of parallelism: The NYT article in its attempt to be "fair" made an incorrect comparison, as did you, at least by implication, between things like the Florida law, which is aimed in part at keeping young children (particularly grade school kids) from being exposed to concepts that they are too young to understand and that would confuse their own developing gender identity, and actual cancel culture as practiced by those on the left. It's unfair, for instance, to compare that Florida law with BLM's attempts to try to silence all disagreement on a college campus, as has happened on several occasions.

Another major aspect of the Florida bill is to keep parents rather than school officials in charge of educating their children on sexual issues. Where attendance is compulsory, and there is a power imbalance between teacher and student, we are not looking at a free and open marketplace of ideas. I believe that Douglas, though perhaps not Black, would agree that the Florida law is not suppressing free speech but rather helping to insure that children are protected and that parental rights are maintained.

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope. You have probably only looked at third-party interpretations of the law. I also suspect that that's also true of many of your other assertions, which I have no inclination to review one-by-one because debating you on BA, where I come for sports information about my beloved OHIO Bobcats, is not high on my priority list.

If you want to read an official summary as well as the full the text of the Florida law, they are here:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1834/?Tab=Bill...

So, since I know you love my poetic waxing, here's another one for you:

“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Our goal is to make the debate on these issues "free and open" which cancel culture tries to deny. If we do manage to have this kind of free and open debate in our nation, regardless of the subject, we will have nothing to worry about. If we don't allow unfettered debate things will go to hell in handbasket.

Now back to OHIO athletics! Go Bobcats!


It's not passive aggression. I'm quite frank with you. I think you're a hypocrite and completely feckless on this subject. You state ideals and lecture others but the ideals you support are fully inconsistent with the ideals you think you embody. Intellectually, I no longer consider you a person capable of any introspection or unbiased analysis. Regardless of who you quote. I've told you this before. I'm telling you again. There's nothing passive about that.

You're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the very obvious truth that both extremes of the American political spectrum threaten the first amendment. Partisanship has broken your brain.

Instead of considering the possibility that both parties might play a role in this, your response is to assume I haven't read a bill, assume I'm misinformed, and then state your refusal to examine other examples for that reason. Intellectually dishonest to it's core. You can't defend those things, and you know it. So you've convinced yourself you don't need to and decided your view here is beyond reproach.

All because you aren't capable of entertaining the possibility that a political party that just flirted awfully hard with overturning a Democratic election might also have some state level representatives with damaging views of the First Amendment.

You're not a free speech absolutist. You're a partisan hack who thinks free speech is a noble concept, but one that's less central to your identity than your partisanship. And now that those two things are in obvious conflict with one another, you've chosen partisanship, and are too much of a coward to examine your own inconsistencies.

Or have you forgotten that everybody here knows whine to the mods to try and get people banned when you don't like what they have to say? All while insisting the most important ideas to defend are the ones you hate, and that you're a proponent of unfettered access to ideas. You don't have to look hard to see the hypocrisy.

As for this:

OhioCatFan wrote:

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope.


This is a very poor interpretation of the law's scope and a fundamental misunderstanding of how good legislation's written. The bill prohibits a "school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary levels in a way that is age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate" but fails to define what is considered age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate.

The result is that it becomes vague and broad and results in limiting what ideas teachers can include in their curriculum and openly discuss without providing any specific guidance or definition. It's a law that's almost certain to be over-turned as unconstitutional -- the Supreme Court has previously ruled that any statute governing classroom speech "must not be so vague that people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application". And when it's over-turned, it will be over-turned because it's in direct conflict with the First Amendment. This isn't hard or controversial. Rational, reasonable people can and do acknowledge this.

A true First Amendment absolutist wouldn't be lining up to defend an overly broad, undefined legislative restriction on a local school board and teachers. If the law was reversed, and stated that a local school boards HAD to teach sexuality and gender, you wouldn't support it. And you'd be right. So how do you support the inverse without being a blatant hypocrite?





He is not worth your time blsos. I do appreciate your comments on this forum.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 2,476

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 4/2/2022 11:19:54 AM 
Weird how within a there's another example of the Right threatening legislative retaliation against Disney for disagreeing publicly with government policy.

But I must be wrong, because this only happens from the left. So all these people publicly stating their intent to "wage a moral war against Disney and turn half their customers against them" must be imaginary. Otherwise, that seems an awful lot like cancel culture. Same with when hosts on Fox News accuse Disney of "grooming" children.

Thank God I'm imagining all of this.
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,422

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 4/6/2022 8:19:42 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Weird how within a there's another example of the Right threatening legislative retaliation against Disney for disagreeing publicly with government policy.

But I must be wrong, because this only happens from the left. So all these people publicly stating their intent to "wage a moral war against Disney and turn half their customers against them" must be imaginary. Otherwise, that seems an awful lot like cancel culture. Same with when hosts on Fox News accuse Disney of "grooming" children.

Thank God I'm imagining all of this.


It's been widely known for years that Walt Disney held racist and anti-Semitic views. Many of his supporters are likely Nazis.

My children only watch government-approved cartoons on PBS like Sesame Street.


I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 2,476

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 4/7/2022 6:30:00 AM 
The Optimist wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Weird how within a there's another example of the Right threatening legislative retaliation against Disney for disagreeing publicly with government policy.

But I must be wrong, because this only happens from the left. So all these people publicly stating their intent to "wage a moral war against Disney and turn half their customers against them" must be imaginary. Otherwise, that seems an awful lot like cancel culture. Same with when hosts on Fox News accuse Disney of "grooming" children.

Thank God I'm imagining all of this.


It's been widely known for years that Walt Disney held racist and anti-Semitic views. Many of his supporters are likely Nazis.

My children only watch government-approved cartoons on PBS like Sesame Street.


Nazis and pedophiles. And thank God for you, there's a party with such a deep and abiding love of free speech, and hatred of cancel culture that they're doing something about this. By threatening legislative retribution and publicly calling for boycotts and making accusations of pedophilia against Disney. And they're right to do so. After all, Disney exercised their constitutionally protected right to speech, but they said the wrong thing! So they deserve punishment. Which isn't cancel culture. It's different.
Back to Top
  
giacomo
General User

Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,190

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Diversity and Inclusion Story
   Posted: 4/18/2022 12:01:02 PM 
They want free speech. Except when they don't.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 35  of 35 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             







Copyright ©2022 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties