Pretty broad brush that you're painting with there.That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
Pretty broad brush that you're painting with there.That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
This conversation seemed to be wrapped up for the most part, but I just saw all this, I just wanted to let you know that you got the 5% backwards. 95% of people in the US would argue saying that word is wrong, 5% think that they can say those types of things without consequences. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequence.We are a weak and pathetic culture.
Sticks and stones.
If society doesn't like it, then he can be punished by fans not coming to games, players not going to WVU because of his stances, etc. Instead it's like 5% of the loudmouth public that tells us certain words are complete no-no's.
But... but... but... NORMANDY!!That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
Huggins situation warrants taking into consideration semantics and context, which you described perfectly, and both condemn him. There's no other way to spin it other than that.I appreciate the nuanced takes on here, but let's not pretend Bob Huggins is being persecuted for using a word wrong, misspeaking, or choosing an antiquated descriptor. He was using a slur as a means to denigrate people who don't even fit into that architype. It's not simply that he said a no-no word.
He used it to describe people, most of whom don't even meet the definition of the slur, in an attempt to denigrate them.
Toss in the fact that he made sure to point out they are also Catholic, and you have a whole word salad of inadvisable excrement.
In other words, in Bob's mind:
Gay=bad
Catholic=bad
He can be dismissive of these people because they are these things.
He's an embarrassment to his profession & his university. Whether or not UWV agrees says a lot about them as well...
His speech is free. He’s not being imprisoned or fined by the government for what he said. You’re confusing freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.I believe speech should be completely free.
Said it before, but bears repeating: it’s not a good idea to stereotype a whole generation.That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
True, You can ask Tucker Carlson about thatHis speech is free. He’s not being imprisoned or fined by the government for what he said. You’re confusing freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
Well, you’re not wrong.That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
So true…particularly when everything about a given generation is a media construct to begin with…Said it before, but bears repeating: it’s not a good idea to stereotype a whole generation.
This statement is exactly the problem. You are making a generalized statement calling an entire generation racists. No one will listen to you after that kind of hyperbole.That same generation threw a hissy fit when black and brown people tried to attend schools or go to restaurants. I'll pass on putting them on a pedestal.
The original statement that portrayed both generations unrealistically while criticizing only one of them is the problem, not any response to it.This statement is exactly the problem. You are making a generalized statement calling an entire generation racists. No one will listen to you after that kind of hyperbole.
So the use of loaded and hurtful terminology makes an exchange of ideas impossible and any suggestion that there is a freedom of expression in response an illusion?This statement is exactly the problem. You are making a generalized statement calling an entire generation racists. No one will listen to you after that kind of hyperbole.
Game threads are the worst.Yeah, I don't do the in-game threads. I'd rather just watch the game. Apparently a smart move on my part.
The original post was referring to a cartoon--aka humor. The worst it did was called 18 year-olds hypersensitive. The response called the 18 year-olds from 1944 racists. So you saying being a racist is a bad as being too sensitive? Hyperbolic statements like the second post have diminished the actual stigma of being called a racist. And, it kind of proves the point of the cartoon.The original statement that portrayed both generations unrealistically while criticizing only one of them is the problem, not any response to it.
I will agree, not everyone from the Jim Crow era was racist. Better?The original post was referring to a cartoon--aka humor. The worst it did was called 18 year-olds hypersensitive. The response called the 18 year-olds from 1944 racists. So you saying being a racist is a bad as being too sensitive? Hyperbolic statements like the second post have diminished the actual stigma of being called a racist. And, it kind of proves the point of the cartoon.
Seems like you're getting pretty hypersensitive about a generation that was wildly racist being called racist.The original post was referring to a cartoon--aka humor. The worst it did was called 18 year-olds hypersensitive. The response called the 18 year-olds from 1944 racists. So you saying being a racist is a bad as being too sensitive? Hyperbolic statements like the second post have diminished the actual stigma of being called a racist. And, it kind of proves the point of the cartoon.
Let’s be honest here. It’s not about 18 year olds crying over words. It’s about much older people finally being called out for the abhorrent words they’ve casually used since long before the storming of Normandy Beach. And they’re not taking it well.The original post was referring to a cartoon--aka humor. The worst it did was called 18 year-olds hypersensitive. The response called the 18 year-olds from 1944 racists. So you saying being a racist is a bad as being too sensitive? Hyperbolic statements like the second post have diminished the actual stigma of being called a racist. And, it kind of proves the point of the cartoon.
But if my generation isn't a bunch of lazy, ambitionless, slackers, then whats my excuse?Said it before, but bears repeating: it’s not a good idea to stereotype a whole generation.
I appreciate the clarification/explanation of intent. That is both useful and constructive.I will agree, not everyone from the Jim Crow era was racist. Better?
Perhaps it was subtle, but my post was humor too even if it didn’t have a cartoon. The whole point was to poke fun of stereotyping a generation. It was meant to be an exaggeration because the first post one was even if it was unintentional. I guess words do mean something.