|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 16, 2018 12:27:25 GMT -5
We live in a society where everything is offensive, and everything is racist.
Heck, Sony just had to apologize for a scene in their Peter Rabbit movie because the band of rabbits threw blackberries at their arch nemesis, Mr. McGregor, because they knew he was allergic to them.
I wish this was an article from The Onion.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 16, 2018 12:43:11 GMT -5
Unreal...but no longer a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 16, 2018 13:13:17 GMT -5
Day by day this political correctness and general nonsense keeps nudging our society towards oblivion.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 16, 2018 13:31:23 GMT -5
I don't think Sony had to apologize, they decided to apologize. Anyway, what's wrong with an apology? I guess some people don't think having dangerous food allergies is that funny
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 16, 2018 13:41:52 GMT -5
...in a cartoon, where no one was hurt? Would dropping an anvil on him (as in the Roadrunner cartoons) have been better?
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 16, 2018 13:45:43 GMT -5
...in a cartoon, where no one was hurt? Would dropping an anvil on him (as in the Roadrunner cartoons) have been better? If you think that's funnier, then sure
|
|
|
Post by hc811215 on Feb 16, 2018 13:47:29 GMT -5
I have to say I was impressed by the letter and the way these folks are going about presenting their point of view. I think you will see continued pressure on the board to change the visual representation. The board decision left them wide open to this type of critique as they expressly disavowed any association with the historical crusades and pledged to give the old word a new meaning. Yes, it is a well written and mostly well thought out. But, I don't think these kids get the fact that a very small minority share their opinion. They are correct that there is not consensus, but this is about as close as it can get in the real world, but that the near consensus holds the opposing view I'm not sure this is the minority view among current students and recent graduates. I saw reference to a poll but can't find anything on it online. with more than 90 kids willing to put their name on the letter, there have to be a whole lot more who agree and probably an equal number who don't care that much. In any event, I think the real purpose of the letter is to keep the administration's feet to the fire on changing the visuals to remove the association with the historical crusades. I don't think it is an irrational fear among the authors of the letter that the school will just forget the whole thing and keep the current visuals.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 16, 2018 13:53:27 GMT -5
Getting rid of the sword akin to getting rid of the Cross.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 16, 2018 14:22:28 GMT -5
"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against the flesh and blood... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace...taking the shield of faith...and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God." (Eph 6:11-17)
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Feb 16, 2018 14:25:47 GMT -5
No tolerance of divergent opinions ? The Board voted unanimously to keep the Crusader We can tolerate dissent Dissent is great. Just don’t like employees of the school making public statements suggesting that we are not tolerant and that the school we are and have been is not the school we want to be.
|
|
|
Post by hc811215 on Feb 16, 2018 14:34:39 GMT -5
Getting rid of the sword akin to getting rid of the Cross. And suddenly, one of the followers of Jesus grasped his sword and drew it; he struck the high priest's servant and cut off his ear. Jesus then said, 'Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:51-52
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 16, 2018 14:46:33 GMT -5
Yes, it is a well written and mostly well thought out. But, I don't think these kids get the fact that a very small minority share their opinion. They are correct that there is not consensus, but this is about as close as it can get in the real world, but that the near consensus holds the opposing view I'm not sure this is the minority view among current students and recent graduates. I saw reference to a poll but can't find anything on it online. with more than 90 kids willing to put their name on the letter, there have to be a whole lot more who agree and probably an equal number who don't care that much. In any event, I think the real purpose of the letter is to keep the administration's feet to the fire on changing the visuals to remove the association with the historical crusades. I don't think it is an irrational fear among the authors of the letter that the school will just forget the whole thing and keep the current visuals. I think the poll results that had 83 percent (IIRC) of students wanting to keep the name of the paper "Crusader" came out about the same time the paper decided to keep the name last year. It might have even been in conjunction with that announcement. Of course that was last year and as we all know a new editorial board could change it this year - especially if the demographic that is most in favor of the change is also the person grading your paper Not an irrational fear at all. Unless they just start pushing the shield with an HC or something else that already exists, I bet it would be a couple of years before some new visual could be conceptualized, drawn, edited a few times, and agreed upon
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 16, 2018 15:00:01 GMT -5
Getting rid of the sword akin to getting rid of the Cross. And suddenly, one of the followers of Jesus grasped his sword and drew it; he struck the high priest's servant and cut off his ear. Jesus then said, 'Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:51-52 I wonder how that impacts the artists who "draw" the sword on our current mascot?
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 16, 2018 15:07:40 GMT -5
Cutting an innocent servant much Morse than running through a Saracen.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 16, 2018 15:32:11 GMT -5
We live in a society where everything is offensive, and everything is racist. Heck, Sony just had to apologize for a scene in their Peter Rabbit movie because the band of rabbits threw blackberries at their arch nemesis, Mr. McGregor, because they knew he was allergic to them. I wish this was an article from The Onion. They should also apologize for throwing anything at anyone at any time. That is assault. And bullying. Suppose they blinded someone? Some people don't find bullying or blinding funny. And Sony sounds dangerously like Sonny which is a demeaning term. Add that to the apology.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 16, 2018 15:48:01 GMT -5
The Three Stooges would never survive in today's world, let alone the Brothers Grimm.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Feb 16, 2018 19:07:52 GMT -5
Nope, just HC70 being HC70.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 16, 2018 20:44:07 GMT -5
Nope, just HC70 being HC70. Unlike for the Mulledy / Healy decision, the college will apparently not publish the comments, nor a synopsis of the comments, nor a table that characterizes the commenting parties, for example, by gender, decade of matriculation, and whether a former athlete or not. (I did note that at least one of the student signatories to the letter was a member of the committee that collated the comments received and did whatever organizing and summarizing was done before presenting the comments to Fr. B. and the BoT.) And the college apparently does not not intend to publish an expository discussion, exegesis even, of why the decisions came out the way that they did. Nor has the college yet identified how the new visual depiction of the mascot will be arrived at. So the letter is not entirely from out of left field. That said, its possible, and quite reasonable, to believe that the college did not want to re-litigate the Crusades in its decision. If it did, IMO, the moniker might also have been a casualty, for reasons similar to the core explanation for the name change by the editors of the campus newspaper; i.e., 'we (the newspaper) are not about burning down synagogues with men, women, and children inside'. And even if one seeks to explain away the 'military' excesses, there is the religious excess in the granting of plenary indulgences and general absolution. As the Pope complained to his apostolic legate, 'how do we explain to the faithful that these crusaders who murdered and raped (fellow Christians, no less), pillaged and plundered (including churches, and their patrimony and holy relics) and yet they are going to heaven because of the absolution granted?' That surely is a losing argument in the current era; and there was a whole Reformation built from that abuse.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 17, 2018 0:05:21 GMT -5
No tolerance of divergent opinions ? The Board voted unanimously to keep the Crusader We can tolerate dissent Dissent is great. Just don’t like employees of the school making public statements suggesting that we are not tolerant and that the school we are and have been is not the school we want to be. I do not like it or agree with her either But I do not believe it necessitates her resignation
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 17, 2018 6:57:11 GMT -5
Nope, just HC70 being HC70. Unlike for the Mulledy / Healy decision, the college will apparently not publish the comments, nor a synopsis of the comments, nor a table that characterizes the commenting parties, for example, by gender, decade of matriculation, and whether a former athlete or not. (I did note that at least one of the student signatories to the letter was a member of the committee that collated the comments received and did whatever organizing and summarizing was done before presenting the comments to Fr. B. and the BoT.) And the college apparently does not not intend to publish an expository discussion, exegesis even, of why the decisions came out the way that they did. Nor has the college yet identified how the new visual depiction of the mascot will be arrived at. So the letter is not entirely from out of left field. That said, its possible, and quite reasonable, to believe that the college did not want to re-litigate the Crusades in its decision. If it did, IMO, the moniker might also have been a casualty, for reasons similar to the core explanation for the name change by the editors of the campus newspaper; i.e., 'we (the newspaper) are not about burning down synagogues with men, women, and children inside'. And even if one seeks to explain away the 'military' excesses, there is the religious excess in the granting of plenary indulgences and general absolution. As the Pope complained to his apostolic legate, 'how do we explain to the faithful that these crusaders who murdered and raped (fellow Christians, no less), pillaged and plundered (including churches, and their patrimony and holy relics) and yet they are going to heaven because of the absolution granted?' That surely is a losing argument in the current era; and there was a whole Reformation built from that abuse. You are making a fine case for ridding the world of the college, the Cross and the Jesuits. As an aside, what might you say about YeShiva university and its mascot the Maccabees?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 17, 2018 8:58:21 GMT -5
What does "rbidding" mean?
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Feb 17, 2018 9:58:10 GMT -5
The Three Stooges would never survive in today's world, let alone the Brothers Grimm. I resemble that remark
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 17, 2018 10:02:01 GMT -5
The Stooges might survive but the way they behave they wouldn't have their customary jobs as plumbers or house painters or other tradesmen---they'd have to be US Senators.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 19, 2018 9:51:42 GMT -5
A little food for thought that certainly seems applicable to the topic at hand: dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/clarence-thomas-decries-victimhood/Clarence Thomas Decries Victimhood Culture In Rare Public RemarksKEVIN DALEY Supreme Court Reporter 6:11 PM 02/15/2018 Justice Clarence Thomas decried the contemporary culture of victimhood during remarks Thursday, telling an audience at the Library of Congress that constant aggrievement would exhaust the country.
Ever a touchstone for controversy on racial issues, the justice related a story from a recent trip to Kansas, where a black college student told him she was primarily interested in school work, and less interested in the political tumult gripping college campuses.
“At some point we’re going to be fatigued with everybody being a victim,” he said.
Thomas has struck similar chords throughout his public life. He appeared on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News program in November 2017, and suggested contemporary activists could benefit from the example of his grandparents, who exhibited quiet fortitude during the heady days of white supremacy.
He made his Thursday remark in the context of a broader discussion about his childhood. Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah-speakers, and spent his childhood working his grandfather’s farm. He likened his upbringing to Kathryn Stockett’s 2009 novel “The Help” as most of the women in his life, including his mother, were domestics in white households.
Given the few options open to blacks in the Jim Crow south, Thomas’ family felt they had no choice but to do the best with what they had. The justice detects the hand of providence in those select opportunities open to him, like parochial education and Savannah’s Carnegie library, which served the black population. “You always have to play the hand you’re dealt,” he said. “If you’re dealt a bad hand, you still have to play it.”
As detailed in his 2008 memoir, he inherited these sensibilities from his grandfather. Thomas was sent to live with his grandparents after a fire ravaged his mother’s home during his childhood.
By Thomas’ telling, his grandfather was the defining figure of his life. When he joined the Supreme Court in 1991, his wife commissioned a bust featuring his grandfather’s favorite quote.
“His favorite quote was ‘Old Man Can’t is dead. I helped bury him,'” Thomas said. (LD edit) I listened to the entire interview on the CSpan app while driving. I think that the reporter must have left after about ten minutes because all of his quotes were from the first ten minutes of the interview. Justice Thomas offered some interesting points: 1. The pubic library was as important as his grandfather in his development. He loved his local library and first went because they had free snacks and he was growing up hungry. 2. When he left the seminary after freshman year, he intended to enroll at Savannah State but his grandfather threw him out of the house. He applied to HC because a friend sent him an application and he was admitted with a scholarship (I don't think that the term financial aid was in use yet.) 3. He enjoyed Holy Cross but acknowledged he was angry the whole time there. 4. He learned a lot at Yale but failed to make the most of the opportunities available there. He regrets having said negative things about Yale in the past. 5. In the summer after his second year at Yale, he went home to Savannah and worked at a small firm which he did not enjoy. He gave no details. He said he received no job offers from any big city firms anywhere in the country which was how he ended up in Missouri. He did not explain anything about that first job which I know to have been in the state AG's office working for John Danforth. 6. He did not discuss his subsequent work before going on the DC Circuit which he enjoyed. He was critical of the confirmation process for all justices but said it was worth it because he loves the job of an SC justice. 7. He acknowledges that he is an introvert and that really came though. He offered almost nothing that the general public doesn't already know about him 8. He said he writes more frequently than any other justice (lots of concurrences and dissents) because he feels the court is obliged to explain itself in more detail. 9. He thinks that the justices should go out and talk about their work as much as possible. I notice that they seem to do this more and more---especially Ginsberg and, it looks so far, like Gorsuch. 10. He loves history and talked about how knowledge of British history informs the understanding of British common law which he said is instrumental in understanding US jurisprudence. I thought that odd since he is generally a textualist and able to find plain meaning in the Constitution without use of outside sources. It was probably close to an hour. I was in the car so it worked perfectly. I also listened to an interview of USCA judge Jon Newman conducted by Dick Blumenthal who was once is law clerk. That was very interesting as Judge Newman, at age 85, was willing to tell a lot of stories. These podcasts can be very worthwhile on long car rides.
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Feb 19, 2018 16:47:31 GMT -5
|
|