Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) How does the Rooney Rule limit or take away freedom of choice? Edited January 13, 2013 by Pondslider
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) You're really asking me how political correctness has taken away freedom and free choice? California mandating gay history. Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances. Schools calling Christmas trees holiday trees. Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. The Rooney Rule. Do you want more? . Now which state is banning Indian team names? The mayor said he thought there should be a discussion, that it wasn't a deal breaker but it made him uncomfortable as is in the interview I most recently saw. Those are a wild mish mash of state bans, restrictions on government entities based on what are government is supposed to stay out of, private institutions choosing not to do things of their own choice.... Edited January 13, 2013 by NoSaint
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 How does the Rooney Rule limit or take away freedom of choice? That's a good boy. Here's a cookie. Good boy.
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 How does the Rooney Rule limit or take away freedom of choice? Freedom to choose not to interview a minority? Which is not exactly or most treasured of freedoms but it is one.... But it's self imposed by a private entity on its own members.
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 That's a good boy. Here's a cookie. Good boy. So nothing then?
sodbuster Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 A privilege granted and given by who exactly? The most frustrating aspect of all of this garbage is the servile mindset so many of you seem to have. You shouldn't be asking on whose authority you are entitled to act, but rather question any authority that seeks to restrict you. Damn man. This response is devoid of anything remotely resembling truth or logic. If I knew who you were, I would buy you a beer.
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) A privilege granted and given by who exactly? The most frustrating aspect of all of this garbage is the servile mindset so many of you seem to have. You shouldn't be asking on whose authority you are entitled to act, but rather question any authority that seeks to restrict you. Damn man. Some of these "freedoms" are restricting (as both you and Just in Atlanta have specified) gays, non-Christians and ethnic minorities . I suppose that's ok though. I should add, the bit about "asking on whose authority you are entitled to act"--- which entity is responsible for a "ban"is a pretty obvious tell as to whether or not freedoms are legitimately being threatened or if it's merely an example of local yokels caving to civic pressure. Edited January 13, 2013 by Punch
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 So nothing then? Read the previous post. I'm not speaking particularly to the Rooney rule (wasn't even my post). I'm talking about the mindset. You seem like an obedient little lap dog who is happy to take what his master deems him worthy of. For that you deserve a cookie. Good boy. If I knew who you were, I would buy you a beer. Thanks man. It's good to know there are a few who still get it.
NoSaint Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Read the previous post. I'm not speaking particularly to the Rooney rule (wasn't even my post). I'm talking about the mindset. You seem like an obedient little lap dog who is happy to take what his master deems him worthy of. For that you deserve a cookie. Good boy. Thanks man. It's good to know there are a few who still get it. Just a reminder that we are still on the main board, not ppp - so id tread lightly on the insults and patronizing until it inevitably gets moved - good note for all parties, not just directed to you Edited January 14, 2013 by NoSaint
Rob's House Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Just a reminder that we are still on the main board, not ppp - so id tread lightly on the insults and patronizing until it inevitably gets moved Thanks for the heads up. Some of these "freedoms" are restricting (as both you and Just in Atlanta have specified) gays, non-Christians and ethnic minorities . I suppose that's ok though. I should add, the bit about "asking on whose authority you are entitled to act"--- which entity is responsible for a "ban"is a pretty obvious tell as to whether or not freedoms are legitimately being threatened or if it's merely an example of local yokels caving to civic pressure. I've read this three times now and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you clarify?
Pondslider Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Read the previous post. I'm not speaking particularly to the Rooney rule (wasn't even my post). I'm talking about the mindset. You seem like an obedient little lap dog who is happy to take what his master deems him worthy of. For that you deserve a cookie. Good boy. Thanks man. It's good to know there are a few who still get it. Haha. So instead of refuting what I said and explaining how the Rooney rule and holidays trees restrict personal freedom of choice you are just going to dismiss the argument. I will say in regards to Just In Atlanta' s list of scary things that obviously nobody here is in favor off censoring books and books being banned by specific school boards is wrong but as far as I know the government isn't burning books so we can drop the Nazi bull ****. Also all of this is so far removed from the subject of whether Redskins is derogatory term or not that its really just clouded what should have been a pretty simple point. Changing the name of a sports franchise because it is archaic and embarrassing restricts nobody' s rights or freedoms. Edited January 14, 2013 by Pondslider
Rob's House Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Haha. So instead of refuting what I said and explaining how the Rooney rule and holidays trees restrict personal freedom of choice you are just going to dismiss the argument. I will say in regards to Just In Atlanta' s list of scary things that obviously nobody here is in favor off censoring books and books being banned by specific school boards is wrong but as far as I know the government isn't burning books so we can drop the Nazi bull ****. What's to refute? It's as if you said water's not wet. I'll take an excerpt from his post: Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances... Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. Explain how none of these things restricts one's freedom. You can't because, as I said earlier, a mandate or ban is necessarily a restriction of freedom. It dictates that someone do or not do something they otherwise are not under any obligation to comply with. You have no point to argue. Your only point is that people should shut up and eat their peas. I have no respect for people with that kind of mindset. And I apologize if I'm being too forward or demeaning toward you, but that's how I feel about the matter. I honestly believe that people who don't appreciate their freedoms don't deserve them, and I'm speaking much more broadly than just in reference to the specific things listed. And as was stated before, this is a question of the cultural shift, not an argument over federal power. Edited January 14, 2013 by Rob's House
Punch Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I've read this three times now and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you clarify? Which part? The threatened "freedoms" specifically mentioned by Just in Atlanta--- "California mandating gay history. Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances. Schools calling Christmas trees holiday trees. Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. The Rooney Rule." If these "restrictions" were not placed on our "freedoms" they would arguably be considered unchecked restrictions on gays, non-Christians and minorities. It cuts both ways but it apparently does not matter. As for the 2nd part: it does matter from what authority "limits on freedom" are being placed. The policies of local government & universities (as well as other private institutions) are generally swayed by public opinion. The federal govt. enforcing bans on personal freedoms is another issue altogether and would constitute cause for alarm.
NoSaint Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 What's to refute? It's as if you said water's not wet. I'll take an excerpt from his post: Explain how none of these things restricts one's freedom. You can't because, as I said earlier, a mandate or ban is necessarily a restriction of freedom. It dictates that someone do or not do something they otherwise are not under any obligation to comply with. You have no point to argue. Your only point is that people should shut up and eat their peas. I have no respect for people with that kind of mindset. And I apologize if I'm being too forward or demeaning toward you, but that's how I feel about the matter. I honestly believe that people who don't appreciate their freedoms don't deserve them, and I'm speaking much more broadly than just in reference to the specific things listed. And as was stated before, this is a question of the cultural shift, not an argument over federal power. But like I said earlier - those are such a crazy mish mash of issues that its near impossible to address. If you are against any restriction ever in the whole world enacted by any level of government, private institution or person, then ill say that's pretty damn extreme. I love my freedoms as much as the next guy but that includes a freedom to say Dan Snyder is an idiot and should probably change the name. He has the freedom to keep the name.
Punch Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 What's to refute? It's as if you said water's not wet. I'll take an excerpt from his post: Explain how none of these things restricts one's freedom. You can't because, as I said earlier, a mandate or ban is necessarily a restriction of freedom. It dictates that someone do or not do something they otherwise are not under any obligation to comply with. You have no point to argue. Your only point is that people should shut up and eat their peas. I have no respect for people with that kind of mindset. And I apologize if I'm being too forward or demeaning toward you, but that's how I feel about the matter. I honestly believe that people who don't appreciate their freedoms don't deserve them, and I'm speaking much more broadly than just in reference to the specific things listed. And as was stated before, this is a question of the cultural shift, not an argument over federal power. Are you sure you're not the one that espousing the above 1st bolded? As for the 2nd bolded, yes it appears the culture has shifted, but not necessarily to some effete liberal latte sipping namby pamby New Age collectivist state that seeks to lay constraints on our freedoms. The shift is in the recognition that this is no longer strictly a White Nation. Look, in my mind, a Christmas Tree is a Christmas Tree. It's patently ridiculous to refer to it as a "Holiday Tree". But it's also ignorant to pretend we're all the same.
Rob's House Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Which part? The threatened "freedoms" specifically mentioned by Just in Atlanta--- "California mandating gay history. Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances. Schools calling Christmas trees holiday trees. Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. The Rooney Rule." If these "restrictions" were not placed on our "freedoms" they would arguably be considered unchecked restrictions on gays, non-Christians and minorities. It cuts both ways but it apparently does not matter. As for the 2nd part: it does matter from what authority "limits on freedom" are being placed. The policies of local government & universities (as well as other private institutions) are generally swayed by public opinion. The federal govt. enforcing bans on personal freedoms is another issue altogether and would constitute cause for alarm. As to the 1st part: Horseshit. Not mandating gay history doesn't infringe on gay people's rights to celebrate their history and allowing people to make nativity scenes doesn't infringe upon the rights of others not to practice that religion. That's nonsensical. More hypersensitive b.s. As to the 2nd part: The fact that public opinion sways this way and so many acquiesce or even support it is exactly what I have a problem with. Public opinion was in favor of Jim Crow at one time, but I guess that's okay? Anyway, it's been fun, but my work day is almost over, and this thread has gone off the rails, (admittedly of my own doing) and I don't want to stoke the fires on the main board any further. If this thread gets moved to PPP maybe we can resume at a later date, but this is all I got for now.
voodoo poonani Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 You do see the difference between "because the name is is derogatory towards a group of people" and "because not everyone that fits under the label is a saint," correct? personally, I don't see it. The image on the side of the helmet isn't a native being hanged or skinned. What about the cowboys? They killed natives? So did many patriots. And if you are offended, don't subscribe to their brand. I'm a free speech advocate, unfortunately that covers hate speech. The way to beat it is ignore it or change the meaning. Diffuse any power perceived by its meaning. Only those who get upset about the name lead credence to the hate that they perceive is behind it.
Rob's House Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 But like I said earlier - those are such a crazy mish mash of issues that its near impossible to address. If you are against any restriction ever in the whole world enacted by any level of government, private institution or person, then ill say that's pretty damn extreme. I love my freedoms as much as the next guy but that includes a freedom to say Dan Snyder is an idiot and should probably change the name. He has the freedom to keep the name. The issues themselves (at least for me) are not what's important. It's the overall mindset that unquestioningly accepts the growing encroachment of political correctness that is smothering our culture. People claim political correctness is b.s. but then act in accordance with it. It's gotten to the point where not only does truth get sacrificed for the ideal, but it's being taken to such an extent that the initial ills it sought to cure are lost in the freestyle and PC for the sake of PC is taking hold. Maybe I'll write a thesis on this and post a link; it's a topic that's been bugging me for quite a while. Sorry all for dragging this into the depths of the political cauldron.
NoSaint Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) The issues themselves (at least for me) are not what's important. It's the overall mindset that unquestioningly accepts the growing encroachment of political correctness that is smothering our culture. People claim political correctness is b.s. but then act in accordance with it. It's gotten to the point where not only does truth get sacrificed for the ideal, but it's being taken to such an extent that the initial ills it sought to cure are lost in the freestyle and PC for the sake of PC is taking hold. Maybe I'll write a thesis on this and post a link; it's a topic that's been bugging me for quite a while. Sorry all for dragging this into the depths of the political cauldron. I get what your saying and don't think our ideals are tooooo far off to be honest, as much as our frustrations with those around the issues are different in this case. Your tired of the "will someone think of the children" style have to treat everyone with kid gloves and I'm a bit weary of the "I hate PC and rage against it even though I don't understand the issue" crowd. Both are an issue. people should have a whole lot of freedom of choice, freedom to offend, and if the government was banning this I'd react far differently but in this case I think it's just such common sense for the owner to act on their own that I'm amazed we even have the opportunity to have this conversation. Ultimately, until someone tries to take away snyders right to name his team what he wants, I think people should have the freedom to be unhappy with the redskins, and your arguing they shouldn't And I think this is an interesting sports related topic so no apologies needed. Edited January 14, 2013 by NoSaint
Punch Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 As to the 1st part: Horseshit. Not mandating gay history doesn't infringe on gay people's rights to celebrate their history and allowing people to make nativity scenes doesn't infringe upon the rights of others not to practice that religion. That's nonsensical. More hypersensitive b.s. As to the 2nd part: The fact that public opinion sways this way and so many acquiesce or even support it is exactly what I have a problem with. Public opinion was in favor of Jim Crow at one time, but I guess that's okay? What is meant by "mandating gay history", anyhow? A public acknowledgement of the contributions made to this country by homosexuals? I would see this as a reversal to longstanding repression and nothing more. No one is being stopped from "making nativity scenes". Public property being appropriated for promoting one particular religion appears pretty innocuous, unless you happen to be a non-Christian not afforded that same privilege. I think you know that. Public policy is typically directed by public opinion--- with local concerns having more sway over local govt. It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that historical pockmarks such as Jim Crow are "on the level" with local politics. The issues themselves (at least for me) are not what's important. It's the overall mindset that unquestioningly accepts the growing encroachment of political correctness that is smothering our culture. People claim political correctness is b.s. but then act in accordance with it. It's gotten to the point where not only does truth get sacrificed for the ideal, but it's being taken to such an extent that the initial ills it sought to cure are lost in the freestyle and PC for the sake of PC is taking hold. Maybe I'll write a thesis on this and post a link; it's a topic that's been bugging me for quite a while. FWIW, I don't really disagree with this for the most part, although you likely think I'm merely "acting in accordance with" political correctness. Many of these supposed intrusions on freedom are nothing more than clumsy attempts to right historical wrongs by well meaning but ill directed local politicians and administrators. I don't believe it is quite the crisis that you are making it out to be, but rather a wave of sudden "awareness". A lot of it is BS, there's no question. But intelligent and informed citizens with common sense need to speak up more often in the public discourse to help foster a balance between the 2 opposing viewpoints.
Recommended Posts