Bob Huggins

Status
Not open for further replies.
#152      
Sunrise services.

72acaeba0a7d0218ef557a7679dca99b83367708.gif
 
#154      
I know cigarettes are harmful, but a 7 page thread?

/s
 
#157      

danielb927

Orange Krush Class of 2013
Rochester, MN
I like thinking about these discussions in terms of "contextualizing" vs "decoupling" norms (not my terms). Most people switch between these based on whatever serves their argument at the moment, although the choice can be used intentionally too. I find it really interesting because (IMO) it sheds a light on a lot of disagreement where the actual facts aren't really all that controversial.

Decoupling norms = it's totally reasonable to discuss an issue in isolation regardless of the context or consequences of any conclusions. For example: "Seems like you're getting pretty hypersensitive about a generation that was wildly racist being called racist."

Contextualizing norms = we can't have discussion without considering the context of the issue & consequences of any conclusions. Example: "Calling an entire generation of people from the mid 1900s wildly racist is pretty stereotypical and idiotic."

Is there even a disagreement about facts here? The first poster is making a de-coupled statement: "past generations were more racist than present ones". The second poster reads this with a contextualizing lens, where the statement is clearly 1) frequently inaccurate when applied to a given individual, and 2) likely to lead to undeserved bias when applied to individuals. But look at the words themselves! The first poster never said that every individual of that generation was/is racist, and the second poster never said that the generation as a whole wasn't more racist on the whole. The entire disagreement lies outside the actual words.

I'm sure there are many other examples in this thread, that's just the first one I found. The entire topic of words as violence (or not) is heavily linked to whether words are interpreted in a decoupled or contextualized way.

I also don't have a solution, just find it interesting given the high levels of polarized debate out there. As far as internet debates go, as others have said, this is a pretty civilized and interesting one - so kudos to Loyalty posters :)

What was the actual topic here again? Oh yeah, Huggins - I agree with others who say he sounded like someone who isn't afraid to use that word in private conversations. I'd have to say that's a deal-breaker if I had control over whether to let him lead within my organization.
 
#158      
I like thinking about these discussions in terms of "contextualizing" vs "decoupling" norms (not my terms). Most people switch between these based on whatever serves their argument at the moment, although the choice can be used intentionally too. I find it really interesting because (IMO) it sheds a light on a lot of disagreement where the actual facts aren't really all that controversial.

Decoupling norms = it's totally reasonable to discuss an issue in isolation regardless of the context or consequences of any conclusions. For example: "Seems like you're getting pretty hypersensitive about a generation that was wildly racist being called racist."

Contextualizing norms = we can't have discussion without considering the context of the issue & consequences of any conclusions. Example: "Calling an entire generation of people from the mid 1900s wildly racist is pretty stereotypical and idiotic."

Is there even a disagreement about facts here? The first poster is making a de-coupled statement: "past generations were more racist than present ones". The second poster reads this with a contextualizing lens, where the statement is clearly 1) frequently inaccurate when applied to a given individual, and 2) likely to lead to undeserved bias when applied to individuals. But look at the words themselves! The first poster never said that every individual of that generation was/is racist, and the second poster never said that the generation as a whole wasn't more racist on the whole. The entire disagreement lies outside the actual words.

I'm sure there are many other examples in this thread, that's just the first one I found. The entire topic of words as violence (or not) is heavily linked to whether words are interpreted in a decoupled or contextualized way.

I also don't have a solution, just find it interesting given the high levels of polarized debate out there. As far as internet debates go, as others have said, this is a pretty civilized and interesting one - so kudos to Loyalty posters :)

What was the actual topic here again? Oh yeah, Huggins - I agree with others who say he sounded like someone who isn't afraid to use that word in private conversations. I'd have to say that's a deal-breaker if I had control over whether to let him lead within my organization.

Well, the term “generation” implies all of the people in a certain age cohort, does it not?

So, … better to say something like “these racist acts, policies, etc., occurred during the generation’s ‘window of accountability’ (whatever the hell that is)”? Of course, that doesn’t mean the majority agreed, just that it happened ”on their watch.” And it says nothing about the “good” that may have come from the same generation that either overturned those acts/policies or laid the seeds for their destruction (civil rights legislation, e.g.).

That said, it seems that it’s often “change-making individuals”, rather than “evil generations”, that are remembered and whose thoughts and acts stand the test of time.

So my point is … Huggins appears to be a POS.
 
Last edited:
#159      
Cancel culture is not a thing. It's accountability culture.
It's mob accountability. The offender is presumed guilty, as is anyone who questions their figurative public lynching.

There are no rights in the court of public opinion. The only recourse is to plead guilty, apologize, and accept the punishment.

Perhaps that's okay if a person says something patently offensive and or engages in behaviors deemed grossly inappropriate.

Still the process strikes some as troublesome.

You still can't go to jail for what you're thinkin,' sittin' on a corner, watching all the ... but you might your lose your job.
 
#160      
It's mob accountability. The offender is presumed guilty, as is anyone who questions their figurative public lynching.

There are no rights in the court of public opinion. The only recourse is to plead guilty, apologize, and accept the punishment.

Perhaps that's okay if a person says something patently offensive and or engages in behaviors deemed grossly inappropriate.

Still the process strikes some as troublesome.

You still can't go to jail for what you're thinkin,' sittin' on a corner, watching all the ... but you might your lose your job.

All i know is the side that is screaming "Cancel culture! Cancel culture!" can't complain about it when they're just as guilty of doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.