ESPN said in a statement. “We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name,”
Doesn't really explain anything, does it? Doesn't explain what they were trying to avoid. What "bad thing" might have happened? Maybe some snowflake ignorantly points out how "insensitive" ESPN is for having Robert Lee on staff for that game? So that leads us to the reply ESPN would have had to put forth.
"We here at ESPN are very very sensitive to all snowflake concerns but,.. Hey stupid! He's Asian, not Confederate!"
That's what I think is the real "bad thing" ESPN was trying to avoid. ESPN coulda easily swatted that type of bullsh!t down, but did not want to be seen spanking any snowflakes.
Laura Wattenberg, the creator of BabyNameWizard.com, who researches names. “I think ironically ESPN did more harm to the name than the statue did, Because ESPN just sort of fired a shot across the bow saying that the name Robert Lee—in all of its forms—is now linked to the general and I suspect that a lot of Bob Lees are cursing them right now.”
Laura Wattenberg, the creator of BabyNameWizard.com, who researches names.
“I think ironically ESPN did more harm to the name than the statue did, Because ESPN just sort of fired a shot across the bow saying that the name Robert Lee—in all of its forms—is now linked to the general and I suspect that a lot of Bob Lees are cursing them right now.”
Laura Wattenberg, the creator of BabyNameWizard.com, who researches names.
“I think ironically ESPN did more harm to the name than the statue did, Because ESPN just sort of fired a shot across the bow saying that the name Robert Lee—in all of its forms—is now linked to the general and I suspect that a lot of Bob Lees are cursing them right now.”
I don't watch news as I don't want those folks to have that kind of sway on my thoughts, you can't help but pick up some tidbits. But I wonder... who stands to gain from all this divisiveness.
It seems paradoxical that one group can complain about something they view as a social or historical injustice and they are snowflakes, but when another group complains about the other groups views they are exposing what they see as an absurdity and are not labeled in kind.
For lack of a better analogy it feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Group A calls group B snowflakes, and in kind, group B responds with allegations of racism or misogyny. As a society, we are only secure as the most vulnerable citizen.
Partisan politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
We are talking about holding some ones name against them because someone may be offended by a name. If you are offended by some ones name, there are bigger issues going on than can be discussed here.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
We are talking about holding some ones name against them because someone may be offended by a name. If you are offended by some ones name, there are bigger issues going on than can be discussed here.
That's one example of corporation with an economic interest of not offending anyone. Not a public policy or social outcry. Corporations make great strides not to offend people so it is not really that surprising that they decided to switch referees. It is surprising that people would decry an organization, for offending them, when the organization was acting proactively to avoid offending anyone. Kind of seems like snow is falling everywhere if you ask me.
It seems paradoxical that one group can complain about something they view as a social or historical injustice and they are snowflakes, but when another group complains about the other groups views they are exposing what they see as an absurdity and are not labeled in kind.
For lack of a better analogy it feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Group A calls group B snowflakes, and in kind, group B responds with allegations of racism or misogyny. As a society, we are only secure as the most vulnerable citizen.
Partisan politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
So, let me see if your compendious and didactic persuasion is getting through to me,....
Snowflakes = Awesome SJWs
People who call snowflakes "snowflakes" = Racist, misogynist, etc, etc, etc..
It seems paradoxical that one group can complain about something they view as a social or historical injustice and they are snowflakes, but when another group complains about the other groups views they are exposing what they see as an absurdity and are not labeled in kind.
For lack of a better analogy it feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Group A calls group B snowflakes, and in kind, group B responds with allegations of racism or misogyny. As a society, we are only secure as the most vulnerable citizen.
Partisan politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
So, let me see if your compendious and didactic persuasion is getting through to me,....
Snowflakes = Awesome SJWs
People who call snowflakes "snowflakes" = Racist, misogynist, etc, etc, etc..
How'd I do Professor?
That's not really what I was saying. When was the last time you met someone who was arguing for trans bathrooms in person? I personally have never met anyone who was, and I work and go to school in a pretty liberal place. How many times have you heard this issue being raised in the media? pretty often, and depending on what news outlet you are listening to is how the issue is framed. One group can claim that it is a human right, and the other group can say that it is not. Whos right? I'm not sure, but when in doubt I generally defer to the golden rule and try and treat everyone with respect and decency. Generally speaking there are no easy answers and this is especially true when they have a moral or spiritual underpinning.
I would wager that most liberals and conservatives are on a spectrum and do not hold the extreme party lines that are associated with them. Not every conservative is pro-life and not every liberal is anti-gun. These are party lines that have been drawn ostensibly by media outlets, and hardline ideologues. Our government was designed to be slow to change, and require a great deal of negotiation and compromise. Arguable for the last 12-years, and the foreseeable future, we have had an unresponsive and ineffective government. Even now there is a threat of another government shutdown.
I don't think most people care about a statute, it doesn't effect their day to day life, but I do think that people on both sides became alarmed at the violence and open parading of fascists and the actions of ANTIFA. I think we have to ask ourselves if we would be worried about the same issues if there wasn't a commercialization of the news media or a 24-hour cycle. I guess my point was that there isn't a huge difference between the two groups because they are both overreacting to things that offend them.
It seems paradoxical that one group can complain about something they view as a social or historical injustice and they are snowflakes, but when another group complains about the other groups views they are exposing what they see as an absurdity and are not labeled in kind.
For lack of a better analogy it feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Group A calls group B snowflakes, and in kind, group B responds with allegations of racism or misogyny. As a society, we are only secure as the most vulnerable citizen.
Partisan politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
So, let me see if your compendious and didactic persuasion is getting through to me,....
Snowflakes = Awesome SJWs
People who call snowflakes "snowflakes" = Racist, misogynist, etc, etc, etc..
How'd I do Professor?
That's not really what I was saying. When was the last time you met someone who was arguing for trans bathrooms in person? I personally have never met anyone who was, and I work and go to school in a pretty liberal place. How many times have you heard this issue being raised in the media? pretty often, and depending on what news outlet you are listening to is how the issue is framed. One group can claim that it is a human right, and the other group can say that it is not. Whos right? I'm not sure, but when in doubt I generally defer to the golden rule and try and treat everyone with respect and decency. Generally speaking there are no easy answers and this is especially true when they have a moral or spiritual underpinning.
I would wager that most liberals and conservatives are on a spectrum and do not hold the extreme party lines that are associated with them. Not every conservative is pro-life and not every liberal is anti-gun. These are party lines that have been drawn ostensibly by media outlets, and hardline ideologues. Our government was designed to be slow to change, and require a great deal of negotiation and compromise. Arguable for the last 12-years, and the foreseeable future, we have had an unresponsive and ineffective government. Even now there is a threat of another government shutdown.
I don't think most people care about a statute, it doesn't effect their day to day life, but I do think that people on both sides became alarmed at the violence and open parading of fascists and the actions of ANTIFA. I think we have to ask ourselves if we would be worried about the same issues if there wasn't a commercialization of the news media or a 24-hour cycle. I guess my point was that there isn't a huge difference between the two groups because they are both overreacting to things that offend them.
We are talking about holding some ones name against them because someone may be offended by a name. If you are offended by some ones name, there are bigger issues going on than can be discussed here.
That's one example of corporation with an economic interest of not offending anyone. Not a public policy or social outcry. Corporations make great strides not to offend people so it is not really that surprising that they decided to switch referees. It is surprising that people would decry an organization, for offending them, when the organization was acting proactively to avoid offending anyone. Kind of seems like snow is falling everywhere if you ask me.
You're kinda stuck on calling out the right as snowflakes too huh? OK.
Sounds to me as tho expendableyouth and Trump agree: There's blame on both sides cause there's bad people on both sides; but there's also good people on both sides. Meanwhile corrupt fake news makes big hay out of a bad situation
Which answers dirtdude's question:
I wonder... who stands to gain from all this divisiveness.
. Well, say you have 100 skinheads who call themselves nazis and you have 100 nazis who call themselves antifas. Out of a population of 350 million, you got nothing. They are outliers. Now say you gather these schidtforbrains in one tiny arena and throw them at each other in front of 4,000 cameras. Then you incessantly chew on this dog fight, hour after hour and day after day. Now you got eyeballs. Which you can sell to the people making everything from peckerpills to hair gel.
Fake news sells.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Laura Wattenberg, the creator of BabyNameWizard.com, who researches names.
“I think ironically ESPN did more harm to the name than the statue did, Because ESPN just sort of fired a shot across the bow saying that the name Robert Lee—in all of its forms—is now linked to the general and I suspect that a lot of Bob Lees are cursing them right now.”
I do agree there were issues on both sides. If you have to show up and protest with a mask on then you are either there for the wrong reason, or you are probably on the wrong side of the issue.
...politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
I have to say you nailed it here.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Comments
“We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name,”
Doesn't really explain anything, does it? Doesn't explain what they were trying to avoid. What "bad thing" might have happened? Maybe some snowflake ignorantly points out how "insensitive" ESPN is for having Robert Lee on staff for that game? So that leads us to the reply ESPN would have had to put forth.
"We here at ESPN are very very sensitive to all snowflake concerns but,.. Hey stupid! He's Asian, not Confederate!"
That's what I think is the real "bad thing" ESPN was trying to avoid. ESPN coulda easily swatted that type of bullsh!t down, but did not want to be seen spanking any snowflakes.
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Guess that's why they can't do sports well anymore. Too much Oprah in 'em.
(Well, ESPN wouldn't have ever hired him in the first place. Yep, I did answer my own question.)
“I think ironically ESPN did more harm to the name than the statue did, Because ESPN just sort of fired a shot across the bow saying that the name Robert Lee—in all of its forms—is now linked to the general and I suspect that a lot of Bob Lees are cursing them right now.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/there-are-11518-robert-lees-in-america/537726/
There Are 11,518 Robert Lees in America
What it’s like to share a name with an infamous historical figure
In fact, I know one from high school who is of Chinese decent.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Because that would be a monopoly of...
A. Idiots
B. Charlie Browns
C. Snowflakes
D. All of the above
E. All of the above and more
ACLU Gets PC Lesson, Admits 'White Supremacy' After Tweeting This Photo
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Maybe Rev. Jesse Jackson should change his name? Some snowflake might confuse him as being a relative of Gen. Stonewall Jackson or something.
For lack of a better analogy it feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Group A calls group B snowflakes, and in kind, group B responds with allegations of racism or misogyny. As a society, we are only secure as the most vulnerable citizen.
Partisan politics require negotiation and understanding. Everyone should be afraid when the very government starts to speak in the context of US v. THEM. We live in the time of a 24-hour news cycle which is as much about advertising and entertainment as it is about informing people.
That's one example of corporation with an economic interest of not offending anyone. Not a public policy or social outcry. Corporations make great strides not to offend people so it is not really that surprising that they decided to switch referees. It is surprising that people would decry an organization, for offending them, when the organization was acting proactively to avoid offending anyone. Kind of seems like snow is falling everywhere if you ask me.
So, let me see if your compendious and didactic persuasion is getting through to me,....
Snowflakes = Awesome SJWs
People who call snowflakes "snowflakes" = Racist, misogynist, etc, etc, etc..
How'd I do Professor?
Godwin's Law?
I would wager that most liberals and conservatives are on a spectrum and do not hold the extreme party lines that are associated with them. Not every conservative is pro-life and not every liberal is anti-gun. These are party lines that have been drawn ostensibly by media outlets, and hardline ideologues. Our government was designed to be slow to change, and require a great deal of negotiation and compromise. Arguable for the last 12-years, and the foreseeable future, we have had an unresponsive and ineffective government. Even now there is a threat of another government shutdown.
I don't think most people care about a statute, it doesn't effect their day to day life, but I do think that people on both sides became alarmed at the violence and open parading of fascists and the actions of ANTIFA. I think we have to ask ourselves if we would be worried about the same issues if there wasn't a commercialization of the news media or a 24-hour cycle. I guess my point was that there isn't a huge difference between the two groups because they are both overreacting to things that offend them.
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Which answers dirtdude's question:
.
Well, say you have 100 skinheads who call themselves nazis and you have 100 nazis who call themselves antifas. Out of a population of 350 million, you got nothing. They are outliers. Now say you gather these schidtforbrains in one tiny arena and throw them at each other in front of 4,000 cameras. Then you incessantly chew on this dog fight, hour after hour and day after day. Now you got eyeballs. Which you can sell to the people making everything from peckerpills to hair gel.
Fake news sells.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain