Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

I didn't say that...I was merely commenting on the reaction of those on the right.  And it seems to have validated to some degree ESPN's concerns about letting Lee call the game.

 

Is it silly? Yes.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  But who cares?  It's a freaking UVA football game.  The guy literally just started his career last year, it's not like he has cache.  It was "mutually agreed upon" so as not to distract from college football.  That's right...ESPN wanted to "stick to sports" and now conservatives are outraged.  (This has been a rallying cry for the alt-right/conservatives for a few years now...ESPN is just too political/liberal!)

 

For a group who routinely calls out liberals for being "triggered" about the most meaningless things, this is some hilarious irony.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

What, why, and how ESPN did what they did is reasonable.

 

Making this decision into some kind of contrived inflection point is irrational.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

I didn't say that...I was merely commenting on the reaction of those on the right.  And it seems to have validated to some degree ESPN's concerns about letting Lee call the game.

 

Is it silly? Yes.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  But who cares?  It's a freaking UVA football game.  The guy literally just started his career last year, it's not like he has cache.  It was "mutually agreed upon" so as not to distract from college football.  That's right...ESPN wanted to "stick to sports" and now conservatives are outraged.  (This has been a rallying cry for the alt-right/conservatives for a few years now...ESPN is just too political/liberal!)

 

For a group who routinely calls out liberals for being "triggered" about the most meaningless things, this is some hilarious irony.

 

I agree, the far right are bigger "snowflakes" than most.

 

 

But just for a second consider: would the left support removing someone from a broadcast because their name was Ayman al Zawahiri or Abu al Baghdadi?

 

Robert E Lee as well as the names represented above have terrible terrible pasts linked with their names, but I think only Robert Lee would suffer this fate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False outrage.  No need for everyone to get their panties in a bunch over this.  I find it silly only because I don't think there would have been all that many jokes or memes.

 

I feel sorry for the guy simply because his parents chose to give him that name.  The name Adolf was fairly popular in Germany until after WWII and has now pretty much disappeared.  Would you name your son Osama?  In reference to Romney using "Mitt", Obama once quipped "I wish I could use my middle name".  I certainly wouldn't name my son Richard if my last name could be used in any combo with 'Dick'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False outrage.  No need for everyone to get their panties in a bunch over this.  I find it silly only because I don't think there would have been all that many jokes or memes.

 

I feel sorry for the guy simply because his parents chose to give him that name.  The name Adolf was fairly popular in Germany until after WWII and has now pretty much disappeared.  Would you name your son Osama?  In reference to Romney using "Mitt", Obama once quipped "I wish I could use my middle name".  I certainly wouldn't name my son Richard if my last name could be used in any combo with 'Dick'.

 

In addition to being a genocidal maniac, Hitler ruined so much stuff: That mustache style, the Swastika - which has its roots DEEP in Ethiopian Christianity, the name Adolf, being a Hipster art-school reject... all ruined forever because of that jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Civil War wasn't on their minds when they named him.

 

Right. And I don't think its "fake outrage"... If he would've went by Bobby instead of Robert, he'd probably still be on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ There has to be "outrage" for there to be "false outrage." So far as I can tell, no one is outraged or otherwise has panties in a bunch over this. My initial, and only reaction, was an ever so slight snicker at the absurdity of it. You won't find me taking to the streets in protest, tearing down statues, hosting discussion groups at the local coffee shop, or boycotting ESPN. I don't think you'll find much of that at all, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I certainly hope not, but it does seem to bother you.  Maybe your panties aren't in a bunch, but only slightly twisted in that annoying way.  Certainly bothered you enough to post about it.

 

On your other point, there doesn't need to be real outrage for there to be false outrage.  That's pretty much your trolling M.O.  You fake outrage at things you really aren't outraged about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESPN thing, IMO, is not PC.  What it seems to me is that some people really seemed to have no real concept of what the ongoing controversy is with Confederate statues, etc.  Simply inadvertently having the same name as a Confederate soldier or general is not in and of itself offensive, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it would be.  This is, for me, a very poor attempted application of what a few people thought was a good PC choice when instead it is an example of a group of people who really have no idea about the context of current events nor the actual goal of the PC movement.  Overall, though, it's not that big a deal, and I find it interesting that this is something that gets the Right into a frenzy of outrage, but NOT real offenses like honoring traitors and people fighting for the subjugation of black people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point my friend made that I hadn't really considered is the protection that this provided to Robert Lee... That's more reasonable to me,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESPN thing, IMO, is not PC.  What it seems to me is that some people really seemed to have no real concept of what the ongoing controversy is with Confederate statues, etc.  Simply inadvertently having the same name as a Confederate soldier or general is not in and of itself offensive, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it would be.  This is, for me, a very poor attempted application of what a few people thought was a good PC choice when instead it is an example of a group of people who really have no idea about the context of current events nor the actual goal of the PC movement.  Overall, though, it's not that big a deal, and I find it interesting that this is something that gets the Right into a frenzy of outrage, but NOT real offenses like honoring traitors and people fighting for the subjugation of black people. 

 

 

With all the outrage over Lee, it is important to remember that America was a much different country back then. We were a collection of states as opposed to a Union, more akin to the UAE. People did not consider themselves Americans first but rather they were Virginians, Ohioans, New Yorkers, Vermonters, etc.  Given that mindset, you would have to understand why Lee would serve the post that he did as General of the Confederate Army. He did not agree with the war or succession from the Union but he was a Virginian first, and that patriotic duty led him to serve his state. He was prepared to lead the Union Army and had discussions with Lincoln about this until Virginia seceded. While looking back at this through the lens of today, it may seem traitorous, but in 1860's logic, to leave your state to serve the Union army would have been deemed more traitorous. The nationalistic pride of USA USA really didn't begin to take shape until after the war, and was fed more by the industrial revolution and the influx of immigrants all over creating our melting pot society. 

 

I think it is important to keep that in context before castigating the individual to the scrap heap of history. He did have many accomplishments he should be recognized for, but he was also a flawed man too, like all of us and all our leaders.  Let's  keep things in perspective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to keep that in context before castigating the individual to the scrap heap of history. He did have many accomplishments he should be recognized for, but he was also a flawed man too, like all of us and all our leaders.  Let's  keep things in perspective 

 

Could you name his other accomplishments here please for reference?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, being the president of a couple of universities elevates him to have statues of himself erected all over the Southern States (often in a military pose)?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heroes of our Revolution and Founding were imperfect men remembered primarily for their positive contributions to our country and for adding their political philosophy to the world.

 

The leaders of the Confederacy might have been honorable men, but their life's work was to preserve the enslavement of other human beings.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, being the president of a couple of universities elevates him to have statues of himself erected all over the Southern States (often in a military pose)?

 

At VMI and the Cittidel and West Point (where he made significant contributions) , it would be appropriate for the military pose. Honoring him all over the South the way they do is a bit extreme, however, recognizing him at military institutions and Wash & Lee is very appropriate and he should be recognized for his contributions to those institutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

 

Nobody is arguing that he was on the wrong side of history however, to go back to the time and argue he is to the level of Hitler and Stalin is absurd.  Sitting in the year 2017 and having someone defend the Confederacy and fight for its right to exist is morally wrong, however, when you look at the man and judgment from the 1860's perspective, and perspective of how the US was viewed, you can at least understand how he would make the wrong choice. 

 

Contrast this to Hitler and Stalin who by 1930's standards were brutal barbarians. Putting Lee to that level is just absurd

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

 

Nobody is arguing that he was on the wrong side of history however, to go back to the time and argue he is to the level of Hitler and Stalin is absurd.  Sitting in the year 2017 and having someone defend the Confederacy and fight for its right to exist is morally wrong, however, when you look at the man and judgment from the 1860's perspective, and perspective of how the US was viewed, you can at least understand how he would make the wrong choice. 

 

Contrast this to Hitler and Stalin who by 1930's standards were brutal barbarians. Putting Lee to that level is just absurd

 

Um... except for the fact that there were plenty of people in Lee's time and long before him that considered slavery to be morally abhorrent and were condemning it left and right.  Southerners absolutely despised Lincoln for his positions against the practice.  So to say that Lee was merely a product of his time is intellectually dishonest.  He was well aware of how many people opposed slavery and what the foundations of the Confederacy were, and simply chose to support them, and not a man caught up in some difficult choice between state loyalty and his own conscience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

 

Nobody is arguing that he was on the wrong side of history however, to go back to the time and argue he is to the level of Hitler and Stalin is absurd.  Sitting in the year 2017 and having someone defend the Confederacy and fight for its right to exist is morally wrong, however, when you look at the man and judgment from the 1860's perspective, and perspective of how the US was viewed, you can at least understand how he would make the wrong choice. 

 

Contrast this to Hitler and Stalin who by 1930's standards were brutal barbarians. Putting Lee to that level is just absurd

 

Um... except for the fact that there were plenty of people in Lee's time and long before him that considered slavery to be morally abhorrent and were condemning it left and right.  Southerners absolutely despised Lincoln for his positions against the practice.  So to say that Lee was merely a product of his time is intellectually dishonest.  He was well aware of how many people opposed slavery and what the foundations of the Confederacy were, and simply chose to support them, and not a man caught up in some difficult choice between state loyalty and his own conscience. 

 

Morally abhorrent by today's standards and 1860s standards are 2 different things. Today, you don't have anyone but a far right wing racist defending the practice of slavery. It would have been much more nuanced in the 1860s. Clearly the tide of the nation and world was moving against slavery as an morally perverse practice, however, given the agrarian nature of the South, you could see why people would have found justification for it at that time.

Also, again, Lee was not necessarily pro or anti slavery. He was a Virginian first and fighting for Virginia. People at that time did not think of the United States the same way you or I think about it, we were not all Americans, we were Virginians and Ohioans first and then Americans second. Today, the thinking is flipped where we are Americans first and Ohioans/Virginians second. The ironic thing is that had Lee been from Kentucky or Maryland, he would still have been a slave owner yet he would have commanded the Union Army and people would not be having this debate about his character.'

 

My point is, while it is indeed a huge character flaw that he was on the wrong side of history, lets keep things in perspective. Hitler/Stalin, this man is not, just like he is also not Pope Francis either. Even without the Civil War, he was someone who was doing important things toward shaping our country through his military background. I agree, we do not need huge parks to honor him like they have in the South. These are less about honoring Lee the man and more about seeking to intimidate. However, castigating Lee as a villain and traitor and one of the true evil people who has ever lived in the world is not accurate and not true to history either.  It is nuanced and we need to recognize that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was any secret at the time that the plantation system and the South's pseudo-aristocracy would crumble without dirt-cheap slave labor.  It's what enabled the plantation owners to become fabulously wealthy and exact complete control over the southern political system -- control so absolute that they compelled hundreds of thousands of whites to go to war to defend their layabout lifestyles. 

 

Our wannabe aristocracy fell decades before the Labour Party rose and destroyed its model in the old country.  Tough to keep up a big house when you actually have to pay the people who maintain it:

img615.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESPN thing, IMO, is not PC.  What it seems to me is that some people really seemed to have no real concept of what the ongoing controversy is with Confederate statues, etc.  Simply inadvertently having the same name as a Confederate soldier or general is not in and of itself offensive, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it would be.  This is, for me, a very poor attempted application of what a few people thought was a good PC choice when instead it is an example of a group of people who really have no idea about the context of current events nor the actual goal of the PC movement.  Overall, though, it's not that big a deal, and I find it interesting that this is something that gets the Right into a frenzy of outrage, but NOT real offenses like honoring traitors and people fighting for the subjugation of black people. 

 

I think the ESPN gaffe is a perfect example of PC culture, or, more specifically, the results of PC culture (which again, is not about common decency, etiquette, and politeness, but the attempt to move the goalposts significance in order to redefine those terms in a manner that more perfectly aligns with the identity politics of the left - in short, feigning offense at things that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person). So, ESPN can try to dress it up however they want to, but it all started with a higher up somewhere believing that having a guy named "Robert Lee" announce a football game in Virginia would offend people. Would it have? We will never know.

 

Also, the irony missed by ESPN is that in order to not offend people they sent Robert Lee up into Pennsylvania from Virginia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it all started with a higher up somewhere believing that having a guy named "Robert Lee" announce a football game in Virginia would offend people. .

 

If you, ya know, ignore what ESPN said about why they made the switch.

 

But I guess that wouldn't fit your narrative now would it?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ESPN made presumptions based on some implicit bias they had and acted upon it. Their intentions may have been pure, and nothing would have come from it if a disgruntled employee not leaked the info to Clay Travis, but the fact that they considered that the announcers name should even be an issue is completely absurd. The fact that they were concerned for the announcer's well being because some idiot might make a Meme about Robert Lee calling the UVA game is just purely absurd and giving ESPN the benefit of the doubt, you would have to question the wisdom of the people who make the decision. This is not like it was a big game. It is UVA for God sakes, nobody watches UVA football on a good day, nobody will be watching them play William and Mary. The fact that they felt all these people would see Robert Lee calling the UVA game and relate his name to the Charlottesville march just borders on the ridiculous. Even if one or 2 people do and make a Meme out of it anyone who has their feelings hurt because someone made a Meme out of them does not belong on TV.

 

The sad thing about ESPN's excuse is that they turned something that was a non-issue into something that people will make Meme's out of now. You seriously need to question the leadership's collective wisdom at ESPN. They turned themselves and the good broadcaster they were looking to protect into a punchline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming the internal memo is true, this story is being vastly overblown. According to the internal memo, "Since Robert was their primary concern, they consulted with him directly. He expressed some personal trepidation about the assignment and, when offered the chance to do the Youngstown State/Pitt game instead, opted for that game -- in part because he lives in Albany and would be able to get home to his family on Saturday evening."

 

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/900510313338077185/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbnation.com%2Fcollege-football%2F2017%2F8%2F24%2F16194950%2Fespn-robert-lee-virginia-game

 

Until I hear otherwise and that ESPN pressured or coerced Robert Lee to skip the show, well, what the f is all the fuss about? It seems the choice was his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Seems like nothing more than feigning offense at something that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person.  Political correctness run amuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It goes back to the way ESPN handled it from the beginning. Instead of just doing the change and saying the announcer preferred the game for family reasons to be able to get home easier after the game, they played into the initial narrative  by saying they did it to protect Lee from scrutiny and potential harmful or offensive behavior by fans who may make fun of him for his name.

 

While they may have had an internal discussion to that effect, there were other legitimate reasons for moving him, and that piece of dirty laundry did not need airing. When the news was leaked to Travis, who enjoys poking ESPN, they could have just come out with a statement that he was moved for family reasons to be able to get home easier after the game and that it was absurd that he would switch games because of his name and the Charlottesville riots. THis would have put an end to it.

 

Instead, they chose responded in the tone deaf way they did and they make Lee and themselves look like giant fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Okay.  Assuming all that is true, the blowback is STILL feigning offense at things that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Okay.  Assuming all that is true, the blowback is STILL feigning offense at things that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person

 

People react in different ways, but I think the blowback was more to do with ESPN's shift into politics instead of pure sports. Plus look at how the story came out. The original story was that he was pulled for having the same name as the general, which people find ridiculous and overboard.

 

People overreacted yes, but ESPN should also be embarrassed by how they handled it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ He wouldn't have had to, no one in their right mind would care, at all.

 

The sad thing about ESPN's excuse is that they turned something that was a non-issue into something that people will make Meme's out of now. You seriously need to question the leadership's collective wisdom at ESPN. They turned themselves and the good broadcaster they were looking to protect into a punchline.

 

Yeah, it's in Streisand Effect territory now. No one would have cared - but memes are like snakes or big cats: once you show that you're afraid of them, they strike:

 

robert-lee-1-768x386.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Okay.  Assuming all that is true, the blowback is STILL feigning offense at things that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person

 

People react in different ways, but I think the blowback was more to do with ESPN's shift into politics instead of pure sports. Plus look at how the story came out. The original story was that he was pulled for having the same name as the general, which people find ridiculous and overboard.

 

People overreacted yes, but ESPN should also be embarrassed by how they handled it too.

 

Okay.  Even if I agree with you on all points, my comment still stands.  Ironic, isn't it, that the members of this forum who get so hot and bothered by PC culture are the main culprits of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, who is supposed to be offended, liberals or conservatives?

 

I'm a liberal and I hadn't even heard about the issue until a conservative started whining about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't know why you keep insisting people are "outraged" or "whining." I'm mostly just pointing a finger at ESPN and laughing. Maybe I should use more emoticons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Okay.  Assuming all that is true, the blowback is STILL feigning offense at things that shouldn't offend any rational, intelligent person

 

People react in different ways, but I think the blowback was more to do with ESPN's shift into politics instead of pure sports. Plus look at how the story came out. The original story was that he was pulled for having the same name as the general, which people find ridiculous and overboard.

 

People overreacted yes, but ESPN should also be embarrassed by how they handled it too.

 

Okay.  Even if I agree with you on all points, my comment still stands.  Ironic, isn't it, that the members of this forum who get so hot and bothered by PC culture are the main culprits of it?

 

People have always been offended by the smallest slights no matter what it is. THe only difference is now people either actually do or pretend to care about people being offended over meaningless crap that it amplifies it. 20 years ago people just moved on and ignored the idiots yelling in the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...