Schwartz: Dolphin, the Hawkeyes, and Being PC
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Schwartz is wrong about political correctness. It's not about righting wrongs. It's speech control, plain and simple (often taken to ridiculous extremes). No downtrodden person was ever helped by the creation and enforcement of a new euphemism.
The term alone should be a dead giveaway. The primary reason our first amendment was established was to protect politically unpopular or POLITICALLY INCORRECT speech. The idea of "political correctness" is an absolute affront to the fundamental concept of free speech.
(and yes, I know the 1st amendment is about government restriction of free speech... we're talking conceptually here, which is applicable everywhere)
I sometimes enjoy Schwartz, but he needs to dump the "10 sentences" thing too. Not only are they rarely 10 sentences, they're not even 10 distinct ideas.
The term alone should be a dead giveaway. The primary reason our first amendment was established was to protect politically unpopular or POLITICALLY INCORRECT speech. The idea of "political correctness" is an absolute affront to the fundamental concept of free speech.
(and yes, I know the 1st amendment is about government restriction of free speech... we're talking conceptually here, which is applicable everywhere)
I sometimes enjoy Schwartz, but he needs to dump the "10 sentences" thing too. Not only are they rarely 10 sentences, they're not even 10 distinct ideas.
Last edited:
RobHowe
Administrator
Agree with me or you're wrong!
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Naw...it's more fun when everybody is allowed to have their own opinion and way of expressing it. EVEN...if it's not politically correct. Not just more fun... essential to maintaining a free society.
smitharooney
Well-Known Member
Zero evidence that Dolph compared a Maryland player to an Ape or gorilla
smitharooney
Well-Known Member
People need to stop saying he did!!!!!
Agree with the first four points in Dave's list, but, somewhat disagree with a few others. For what it is worth, my thoughts. . .
#5 Don't really agree with the mountain range comment. The man made a mistake for which he apologized. The University and Learfield appear to have made it a much bigger issue. Molehill, mountain, somewhere in between. I think the point that needs to be made is that people need to be a bit more measured and thoughtful about their words. Not dismissive, nor exaggerated.
#6 Generally agree, however, the same could be said for the over-the-top always offended victim crowd (of any color). See point above about thoughtful and measured. If someone wants to talk to me or discuss a difference or grievance, no problem. Attack me and you will get a different response.
#8 Wow, really? Is that really where you want to go with this? " . . . a long-overdue method of stripping unearned cultural power from Earth’s Mightiest Victims, straight white men. . . " I get that you want to swipe back at the anti-PC crowd you referenced in #6, but, to use such broad generalizations undermines your position. People have the right to demand respect, period.
#9-10 You are correct that it matters, and, was an opportunity to educate some people. For example, your point about, "... For centuries white people depicted black people as less than human. . ." That is a good point to make, especially to a lot of people that just thought of the comparison of King Kong swatting airplanes and the player swatting away basketballs. If you are not black, you might not have thought much more about why it may be perceived as offensive. Missed opportunity to educate people.
#5 Don't really agree with the mountain range comment. The man made a mistake for which he apologized. The University and Learfield appear to have made it a much bigger issue. Molehill, mountain, somewhere in between. I think the point that needs to be made is that people need to be a bit more measured and thoughtful about their words. Not dismissive, nor exaggerated.
#6 Generally agree, however, the same could be said for the over-the-top always offended victim crowd (of any color). See point above about thoughtful and measured. If someone wants to talk to me or discuss a difference or grievance, no problem. Attack me and you will get a different response.
#8 Wow, really? Is that really where you want to go with this? " . . . a long-overdue method of stripping unearned cultural power from Earth’s Mightiest Victims, straight white men. . . " I get that you want to swipe back at the anti-PC crowd you referenced in #6, but, to use such broad generalizations undermines your position. People have the right to demand respect, period.
#9-10 You are correct that it matters, and, was an opportunity to educate some people. For example, your point about, "... For centuries white people depicted black people as less than human. . ." That is a good point to make, especially to a lot of people that just thought of the comparison of King Kong swatting airplanes and the player swatting away basketballs. If you are not black, you might not have thought much more about why it may be perceived as offensive. Missed opportunity to educate people.
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
The reason I don't like political correctness, aside from it being fundamentally offensive to the concept of freedom of speech and free expression of thought, is that political correctness might preclude assholes from saying things that reveal them to be assholes, and I'm the kind of guy who likes to know what I'm dealing with right up front.
I mean if you're a neonazi let's get that shit known ASAP so we can proceed accordingly. I don't need to waste my time beating around the bush.
I mean if you're a neonazi let's get that shit known ASAP so we can proceed accordingly. I don't need to waste my time beating around the bush.
Isn't the "intent" behind the words or action what is most important? I understand that King Kong might be a "flashpoint" for some. When I hear a King Kong reference I think of strength. But if there is no malicious intent, a year long suspension for a borderline word?
I also understand that in the current state of affairs, if the broadcast company/University don't come down hard, even beyond fairness towards the "offender", there are groups of people (many from outside the university) that will try to destroy and take down the whole thing, like the University of Missouri and others. It is easier to get rid of the "offender" than to end up having your own position at risk which would happen if you approach this with a sense of repentance/confession/forgiveness, and teaching/learning for all.
Opinions from various people......nothing more, nothing less. Because opinions are sometimes published, broadcast, or advertised doesn't make them necessarily any more worthy than yours or mine that might be silently held at times.
"Agree with me or you're wrong" is a good summary statement of the state of affairs these days. I can see why the U of I has remained silent for the most part.
"Agree with me or you're wrong" is a good summary statement of the state of affairs these days. I can see why the U of I has remained silent for the most part.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
What's the expression? ... sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Our society (well, a certain segment of it) seems obsessed with the idea of protecting people from everything instead of facing things and dealing with them. If you've ever raised a kid (or watched someone else do it) you know the kind of character you develop with each of those approaches.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
king kong was a fictitious being.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
After the way he treated Fay Wray I'm surprised the #metoo community isn't in on this one.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
you have nailed the issue. that is what this country has turned into. "agree with me or you're wrong." the concern is that this is practiced at levels of authority and is used as a fear cudgel to control.
when i was a kid i used to get picked on a lot because i'm half mexican and look it. my dad, who isn't mexican, taught me that when someone picks on me, laugh. laughing at an insult ruins the moment for the bully making fun and they would stop. and guess what, it worked. i grew a thick skin about it and the name calling stopped. some of those kids making fun of me actually became my best childhood friends.
should a mans career and reputation be ruined over words that the subject wasn't even aware were said?
Schwartz is entitled to his opinions, as we all are. But if Mr. Schwartz believes Dolph "should have known better" then i ask Mr. Schwartz to:
1) Provide a universal agreed upon list of all words that cannot be said in every situation, about all peoples of all nations.
2) If someone truly and truthfully has no racist or ill intent, how can they be conscious of what word(s) may or may not be offensives, and to whom they may or may not be offensive. A person is being made guilty of something they are completely unaware of.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Dave is wrong. This is not about political correctness, racism, or anything else about the words that Dolphin said. It's a witch hunt to get Dolphin out and someone's behind it. Miller lays out his case for who he thinks it is (and I agree). Dave seems to think it's simply that Dolph said the wrong words and is being punished. Basically, the difference between the two writers is that Jon is saying Dolphin is not at fault and Dave is saying Dolphin is at fault. I agree with Jon.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
they are both right to have their own opinion. the test should be freedom of speech. honestly, it should have been a non issue. it is a made up issue based on the demand for politically correct speech in which no one has ever provided a complete, universal and comprehensive list of words not to use.
Should the people described as "Hulk" by Dolph (or anyone else) be offended because the "Hulk" is a creature of rage? What about "warrior?" A warrior has a connotation of violence and death. Isn't that offensive?
