Eden Prairie Coach

Donate To GopherHole

Gophers_4life said:
Actually, it was:

I say: no, society should

Let me know if you have any interest in honest, good faith discussion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So, you are deciding what society should do? Be honest with yourself - this is your view of the world without considering how others might have a different valid view within their context.
 

formerlybis said:
So, you are deciding what society should do?
Click to expand...
I can only type out clear, obvious English language and assume that you, a native English speaker, can comprehend the words.

I wrote no such thing.

formerlybis said:
others might have a different valid view within their context.
Click to expand...
You think most others will find it acceptable for women to casually refer to each other as c__ts, in public discourse?


Again, let me know if you're interested in honest, good faith discussion.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Simple, easy thought experiment:

should society find it acceptable for women to call each other c__t?

"Oh you know Sally, she's one of those 'work from home' c__ts."
"Can you believe what that Janice did?? I asked all my c__ts about it, and we all agree it was a terrible decisions."
"Oh for sure, she's my best c__t. We've been through it all together."


I say: no, society should not allow this to be acceptable for any women. It is of course not acceptable for men, and so it should not be acceptable for anyone.


Well ..... ?????
Click to expand...
Please explain how this is not you deciding what society should do. That is the only conclusion I'm drawing from this post.

Whether you like it or not, there are different standards for different people. Context matters. It's a nuanced world.

And, we were talking about both private and public discourse, or at least I was. Do you think it's ok for a white person to use slurs describing another race in a private conversation?

I think the conversation you describe with the c word might actually be ok if the participants are women, it's relatively private, and they are consenting/not offended. As a man, it's not really for me to say whether it's never acceptable.
 

Gophers_4life said:
But an arbitrary other lay, common person does get to make the rules, for no valid reason?
Click to expand...
It's not "an arbitrary person". The groups that slurs were targeted at chose to reclaim the word to strip it of its power. Not just racial, but calling gay people the F-word etc. If you're a member of those groups you can choose to use it or not. If you're not, it's not your business.

Gophers_4life said:
Sorry, not going to abide by that. Not good enough
Click to expand...
You don't "have to" abide by anything. But you don't get a free pass on the consequences if you make that choice and you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.
 


Gophers_4life said:
???

I Googled "basketball coach from rogers minnesota fired" and got mostly nothing. Can you please link to this story? Or you're saying it got buried?
Click to expand...
It got buried. Flom was reading some of the tweets to his players. This what all of this stem from
 

Burying a story about a high school coach using the n-word, in this day and age? That's impressive. I couldn't find one thing about it.
 

I once had a college course on diversity and internationalism in American culture. It was a hybrid history and literature course. The instructors introduced the class to two images with disparaging offensive words about Chinese and Irish. We also read literature and history of African American history.

The said person at Eden Prairie was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is inappropriate.

The said person at Eden Prairie, a person of good character, was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is NOT inappropriate.

The said person at Eden Prairie, a person of good character, was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is NOT inappropriate.

After proper due process of looking into what happened an appropriate resolution occurred. Racism is never acceptable. Eden Prairie adheres to a high standard.

Misconstruing what happened is dishonest and immoral.

Racism is never acceptable. Racist motivation is never acceptable.
 

Bfan said:
I once had a college course on diversity and internationalism in American culture. It was a hybrid history and literature course. The instructors introduced the class to two images with disparaging offensive words about Chinese and Irish. We also read literature and history of African American history.

The said person at Eden Prairie was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is inappropriate.

The said person at Eden Prairie, a person of good character, was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is NOT inappropriate.

The said person at Eden Prairie, a person of good character, was presenting for the responsible use of social media and what is NOT inappropriate.

After proper due process of looking into what happened an appropriate resolution occurred. Racism is never acceptable. Eden Prairie adheres to a high standard.

Misconstruing what happened is dishonest and immoral.

Racism is never acceptable. Racist motivation is never acceptable.
Click to expand...
The fact that this guy thought he had to tell players and coaches not to use a hard "R" on social media, is actually mind boggling.
 




MonikerSchmoniker45 said:
The fact that this guy thought he had to tell players and coaches not to use a hard "R" on social media, is actually mind boggling.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!! That's why this whole situation is dumb to me. It isn't like he had players who struggled with that in the past or anything. The fact that he didn't consult his other coaches before approaching this topic makes it dumb as well. He had two black coaches on staff and connections to Coach Mckenzie, Damian Johnson, & the current head coach at North St. Paul. He had enough resources beforehand, so this situation should have been avoided.
 

This thread had regressed into an ignorance fight. It's starting to sound like this:

Costello: Hey, Abbott! I'm ready to give my speech.
Abbott: That's great, Lou. Just don't use the word that you can't used.
C: What's the word I can't use?
A: Well, I can't use it.
C: Then how am I gonna know what word not to use?
A: Well, if you use it, people will get very angry with you. They might even try to hurt you.
C: Sheesh! I don't wanna get hurt. I wish I could know what the word is.
A: So what's you speech about?
C: Freedom of speech and tolerance for differing viewpoints.

No, wonder academia is so unpopular.
 

goldengophers said:
Kiss the ring of Trump lose the 3rd. Came up a Ramstad Republican in the 3rd, the choice has never been easier. Paulsen's orange signs and unassuming style worked until he kissed the ring.
Click to expand...
Dean Phillips is more or less a present-day incarnation of Jim Ramstad. He even had a picture of Jim in his campaign office. He's not some uber-woke (I hate that word) far left-winger.

Ramstad wouldn't be accepted in the GOP today. Most Minnesota Republicans (Carlson, Quie, Durenburger) of that era wouldn't.
 



GopherPlaya said:
BINGO!!! That's why this whole situation is dumb to me. It isn't like he had players who struggled with that in the past or anything. The fact that he didn't consult his other coaches before approaching this topic makes it dumb as well. He had two black coaches on staff and connections to Coach Mckenzie, Damian Johnson, & the current head coach at North St. Paul. He had enough resources beforehand, so this situation should have been avoided.
Click to expand...
You're saying that a bball coach from Rogers was fired for using the word ending in -er in a Tweet.

I'm not really saying anything that you didn't already say here, but still -- why did he think he needed to tell his players not to do such a thing? Wouldn't the thing to do, be to tell your other coaches not to follow that example?

Why not do a thing where you just show the Tweet on the projector and say something like "this coach from Rogers was fired for this Tweet. I'll let you read it. Please guys, make sure your social media content is appropriate. OK? OK, moving on."
 


howeda7 said:
If you're not,
Click to expand...
then 100% arbitrarily, it was decreed.

It's still zero different. It's people telling other people what they aren't allowed to do, arbitrarily.


I don't get to. But then you don't get to, and then they don't get to.

That's how it works.

howeda7 said:
you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.
Click to expand...
Nor do you.

But they do. Yep, that makes sense. :sneaky:
 

formerlybis said:
Please explain how this is not you deciding what society should do.
Click to expand...
Because English language words have definitions?

The word "should", entirely explains it and entirely exonerates me from your false claim of trying to dictate.

These two things are entirely different:
"Go make me a sandwich"
"You should make me a sandwich"

The latter entirely implies that the other person has total agency and choice over if they will choose to do it or not.

formerlybis said:
Do you think it's ok for a white person to use slurs describing another race in a private conversation?
Click to expand...
The only context of the thread (from the OP) is someone who (temporarily) lost their job for saying something in a public setting.

If that coach was talking privately with two white friends and was using the word ending in -er with them, and that did not bother any of them, then the fact that I think they should've chosen to never use that word is irrelevant. We would've never heard about it.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Because English language words have definitions?

The word "should", entirely explains it and entirely exonerates me from your false claim of trying to dictate.

These two things are entirely different:
"Go make me a sandwich"
"You should make me a sandwich"

The latter entirely implies that the other person has total agency and choice over if they will choose to do it or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, still don't understand. If two people said those two sentences to me, I would interpret them exactly the same way.
 

formerlybis said:
Yeah, still don't understand. If two people said those two sentences to me, I would interpret them exactly the same way.
Click to expand...
Well, you're allowed to falsely interpret things. I can't stop you from doing that.

It was clear, now I've explained it, and it's clear.


Let me know if you're interested in honest, good faith discussion. Since you cut out the other part of the post, I'll assume you never were.
 

Gophers_4life said:
then 100% arbitrarily, it was decreed.

It's still zero different. It's people telling other people what they aren't allowed to do, arbitrarily.


I don't get to. But then you don't get to, and then they don't get to.

That's how it works.


Nor do you.

But they do. Yep, that makes sense. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
Who's They?
 



howeda7 said:
What exactly is it you want to see changed?
Click to expand...
The change, in the first place, is deviating from the only correct position:
- If one group of people is not allowed to use a word, then no one gets to use it.
- If one group of people is allowed to use a word, then everyone gets to use it.

In the case of either word, quite frankly, it should be the first one. That would be the most beneficial for society.
 

Gophers_4life said:
The change, in the first place, is deviating from the only correct position:
- If one group of people is not allowed to use a word, then no one gets to use it.
- If one group of people is allowed to use a word, then everyone gets to use it.

In the case of either word, quite frankly, it should be the first one. That would be the most beneficial for society.
Click to expand...
You're free to go to the minority group in question and demand they stop using it. And if they refuse, you're free to start using it. But I don't think you'll like the results in either case.
 


Gophers_4life said:
The change, in the first place, is deviating from the only correct position:
- If one group of people is not allowed to use a word, then no one gets to use it.
- If one group of people is allowed to use a word, then everyone gets to use it.

In the case of either word, quite frankly, it should be the first one. That would be the most beneficial for society.
Click to expand...
says you
 


howeda7 said:
You're free to go to the minority group in question and demand they stop using it. And if they refuse, you're free to start using it.
Click to expand...
Your cop out is noted. You never had a valid argument justifying the way things are. Rather, simply because you like how they are, you'll hand-waive.
 

Gophers_4life said:
You're saying that a bball coach from Rogers was fired for using the word ending in -er in a Tweet.

I'm not really saying anything that you didn't already say here, but still -- why did he think he needed to tell his players not to do such a thing? Wouldn't the thing to do, be to tell your other coaches not to follow that example?

Why not do a thing where you just show the Tweet on the projector and say something like "this coach from Rogers was fired for this Tweet. I'll let you read it. Please guys, make sure your social media content is appropriate. OK? OK, moving on."
Click to expand...
Yes that’s been my point the entire time
 

Gophers_4life said:
You arbitrarily say otherwise.

So? Who gets to decide?
Click to expand...
It's not arbitrary. I have not experienced life other than a white male. I know what is appropriate for conversation within that context. I do not presume to understand what it's like to be anything other than that, and so, I don't presume to know what is and isn't acceptable for conversation within other contexts. I will let them decide for themselves.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom