Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Copycats. UC Davis campus cops did it first:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...protests#img-1

But that cop didn't get prosecuted. Fired, but then he collected worker's comp.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

6 minutes per mile slower?

No. My lawtalkers talking law claim to fame is having a sub-3 hr marathon while Penske doesn't.

[LessinSF]

Article re the Texas right v. the Texas far-right and masks - http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b7Kz&ocid=iehp

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

No. My lawtalkers talking law claim to fame is having a sub-3 hr marathon while Penske doesn't.

My lie was I'm 6' 11"

[Replaced_Texan]

How does one sign that idiotic Haper letter and then threaten to sue a newspaper for libel?

I really love the Harry Potter books and movies. This whole side of her just sucks.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My lie was I'm 6' 11"

Well played! As if a Harvard/Yale man would ever need to lie about his height.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

How does one sign that idiotic Haper letter and then threaten to sue a newspaper for libel?

I really love the Harry Potter books and movies. This whole side of her just sucks.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

While were on Scotland:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sebby, maybe you just missed the post below, but your (lack of a) response leads me to think that complaining about cancel culture is a way to avoid discussing the very real bad things that some people do, and instead to talk in a vague way about free speech. Your commitment to free speech would be more convincing if you tried to deal with what actually happened with Adam Rapoport, instead of using a phony victimization of him. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What is cancel culture? Perhaps it's a rhetorical trick to defend people by avoiding discussion of what they're doing, and turning attention to their attackers.

Kevin Williamson's piece in the New York Post, which Sebby shared, says the following about the defenestration of former Bon Appetite editor Adam Rapoport:

Set Bennett and Eller aside, and just look at Rapoport. Read again what Williamson says about his firing, and then read the article that *he* links to, which says much more about "accusations of discrimination and lack of inclusiveness at the magazine." Note, also, that the article doesn't describe Rapoport being fired after an inadequate mea culpa -- it doesn't describe any mea culpa at all. (Rapoport announced he was leaving " "to reflect on the work that I need to do as a human being"). It's pretty clear that Rapoport wasn't getting it done, and that Williamson is not interested in facts that would undercut a horror stories about the excesses of cancel culture. So does anticancel culture necessarily mean ignoring the real reasons why people change jobs (hello, Bari Weiss)? One complaint about the Harper's letter is that it ignored the particular facts of a bunch of situations in favor of a little story about the freedom of speech. One sees a theme.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Well played! As if a Harvard/Yale man would ever need to lie about his height.

Thanks for having my back, my brother! And of course I didn't lie- true fact - my height percentile is actually even higher than my LSAT percentile!

But I was just trying to give coltrane some cover for being caught in such a juvenile lie. Sad.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

While were on Scotland:

"Wee dick." Far better chirp. Was in Scotland a little over a year ago. Loved the place. Was able to take part in one of my favorite hobbies, drinking.

Friend of ours had gone over there years ago and stayed illegally. Sounds like a plan. And because I lived in a house with a band from Newcastle decades ago, I can speak the language.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Turns out that the political party that now stands for infecting grandparents, tear-gassing moms and caging children isn't as popular as it used to be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, maybe you just missed the post below, but your (lack of a) response leads me to think that complaining about cancel culture is a way to avoid discussing the very real bad things that some people do, and instead to talk in a vague way about free speech. Your commitment to free speech would be more convincing if you tried to deal with what actually happened with Adam Rapoport, instead of using a phony victimization of him. YMMV.

The tweet exchange between Rappaport and the writer who alleges there was discrimination at BA is no longer available. But when you say “bad” things, I assume you’re not referring to that. You’re referring to the tasteless costume and his tone deafness to minority writers.

Ok. So the costume is bad. It shows terrible judgment and it’s mean. But is a 2010 incident of that minor magnitude worthy of a volcanic response a decade later? I think not.

But he should have apologized. As Howard Stern and Ted Danson have done for doing something far worse. Yes, blackface is far worse than wearing an insensitive costume celebrating stereotypes. (One can dress as a Chav, in track suit and gold, using miserable lowbrow Brit accents and accrue laughs and not derision. One may also dress as a hayseed or redneck for Halloween and not be accused of offensive behavior. Both of those groups have little if any power, but it’s still acceptable in most social circles to satirize stereotypes of them. A group stereotype may be an effort to be edgy that fails. It may be an open mockery of political correctness, taboo humor. Blackface, OTOH, totally dehumanizes the target.)

So then we get to Rappoport’s alleged discriminatory acts towards journalists of minority background. That’s a fair basis for people to demand a firing. Totally agree.

Finally, we have the issue of whether Rappoport simply wasn’t performing. Another acceptable basis to call for a firing.

But the 2010 photo alone? Not a basis to call for a firing, or to fire, particularly if he’d acknowledged its insensitivity and apologized for bad judgment.

ETA: Stereotypes are tricky. They have historically been a source of much humor, often by people of the stereotyped groups themselves. I think they actually serve to bond people, as we all get a chance to laugh at ourselves. The trouble is there’s a fine line, and one has to be a near professional humorist to balance on it. Rappoport wasn’t balancing anything. He just dressed as a stereotype which on its own isn’t very funny. (I may be biased here as I hate costumes of all types and really loathe costume parties.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

How does one sign that idiotic Haper letter and then threaten to sue a newspaper for libel?

I really love the Harry Potter books and movies. This whole side of her just sucks.

My favorite cancellation attempt is Cotton proposing a bill that would pull federal funds from any school that uses the resource materials provided by the 1619 Project in their teaching. I think the NY Times should give its pages to an op-ed from him on the subject.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The tweet exchange between Rappaport and the writer who alleges there was discrimination at BA is no longer available. But when you say “bad” things, I assume you’re not referring to that. You’re referring to the tasteless costume and his tone deafness to minority writers.

Ok. So the costume is bad. It shows terrible judgment and it’s mean. But is a 2010 incident of that minor magnitude worthy of a volcanic response a decade later? I think not.

But he should have apologized. As Howard Stern and Ted Danson have done for doing something far worse. Yes, blackface is far worse than wearing an insensitive costume celebrating stereotypes. (One can dress as a Chav, in track suit and gold, using miserable lowbrow Brit accents and accrue laughs and not derision. One may also dress as a hayseed or redneck for Halloween and not be accused of offensive behavior. Both of those groups have little if any power, but it’s still acceptable in most social circles to satirize stereotypes of them. A group stereotype may be an effort to be edgy that fails. It may be an open mockery of political correctness, taboo humor. Blackface, OTOH, totally dehumanizes the target.)

So then we get to Rappoport’s alleged discriminatory acts towards journalists of minority background. That’s a fair basis for people to demand a firing. Totally agree.

Finally, we have the issue of whether Rappoport simply wasn’t performing. Another acceptable basis to call for a firing.

But the 2010 photo alone? Not a basis to call for a firing, or to fire, particularly if he’d acknowledged its insensitivity and apologized for bad judgment.

ETA: Stereotypes are tricky. They have historically been a source of much humor, often by people of the stereotyped groups themselves. I think they actually serve to bond people, as we all get a chance to laugh at ourselves. The trouble is there’s a fine line, and one has to be a near professional humorist to balance on it. Rappoport wasn’t balancing anything. He just dressed as a stereotype which on its own isn’t very funny. (I may be biased here as I hate costumes of all types and really loathe costume parties.)

In other words, Rapoport deserved to be fired for other reasons, and we don't need to discuss his costume at all. So Williamson's choice to include him as an example of cancel culture was intentionally misleading (remember: Williamson cited to that NPR article as his source), an effort to manufacture an example of cancel culture out of a set of facts that suggest something else was going on.