Political Correctness

57Brave said:
free market sucks sometimes.
Another landlord expressing his individual freedom --- some would say
Click to expand...

Oh of course I believe in a landlords right to dicriminate.

But I believe you were on the "bake the cake" side, right?

So you only approve of discrimination when it's your opponent.

I'm stunned, I tell ya
 
Is it hard eating and drinking whist talking out of both sides of one's mouth ?
..

are you advocating the provocateurs of Fox have their civil rights protected by the government ?
I see your point, they have been shunned,lynched, denied life "liberty" and the pursuit of happiness for generations at the hands of systemic discrimination.


To answer your question, yes I thought and still think said baker, by law, should have to bake the cake.
To help level the field, I support the law
.......................................................

Shoe on other foot and the tough guys are crying like a bunch of "whiny bitches"
Friggin snowflakes
 
Last edited:
One thing about Sturg’s post is that it seems to be about inquiring to be a roommate, not just renting an apartment from a landlord. I can understand not wanting to share space with someone with some obvious red flag incompatibility as opposed to not being willing to engage in a commercial transaction with them. That said, it also seems kinda rude to respond that way.
 
sturg33 said:
[tw]1078361999539605505[/tw]
Click to expand...

I think if you read the relevant case documents you might not want to go out on a limb here. If you’d rather just post click-bait catnip headlines for aggrieved conservative victimization addicts, that’s your right.
 
So far we’re supposed to have our hair on fire about an anti-gay-marriage conservative being turned down as a roommate by a gay couple and a convoluted university disciplinary proceeding against a textbook stalker with multiple priors.

If there’s anything else I need to be concerned about this weekend, please let me know, because I’m scheduled to be hysterically screaming at the sky today with the rest of the TDS crowd.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think if you read the relevant case documents you might not want to go out on a limb here. If you’d rather just post click-bait catnip headlines for aggrieved conservative victimization addicts, that’s your right.
Click to expand...

Cathy Scroggs, who was Mizzou’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs when the incident involving John and Jane occurred, was asked during a recent deposition if the accusation against John satisfied the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another. Scroggs responded, “I think he was perceived as having power over her.”

She was further questioned as to the “nature of [John’s] power over her.” The interviewer asked if it was just John’s “size” that contributed to that “power.”

Scroggs responded: “His physical size.”

The interviewer then said part of the conduct code “doesn’t require him to be a teacher.” And asked, “When it says person of authority, it doesn’t mean, like, a teacher or boss?”

Scroggs responded: “Well, I suppose it could; but in this case, no, I didn’t interpret it that way.”
 
Julio3000 said:
So far we’re supposed to have our hair on fire about an anti-gay-marriage conservative being turned down as a roommate by a gay couple and a convoluted university disciplinary proceeding against a textbook stalker with multiple priors.

If there’s anything else I need to be concerned about this weekend, please let me know, because I’m scheduled to be hysterically screaming at the sky today with the rest of the TDS crowd.
Click to expand...

no doubt

he always finds the real pulse of what is wrong with the country
 
sturg33 said:
Yes... at what point is the accusation that the "man had power over the girl due to his physical size" not accurate?
Click to expand...

At what point is that an accurate reflection of the substance of her complaint? You’re framing this as an issue of a title IX complaint being somehow based on the disparity in their size. If you read the document—which is his legal filing and as such provides the most favorable view of his actions—you’ll see that the complaint was based on his unwillingness to leave her alone, to respect boundaries, to avoid unwanted physical contact, all after repeated requests...it meets the standard for harrassment and/or stalking. And, by the admission of his own lawyer, it wasn’t the first time he’d stalked or harassed a female instructor. So I’m asking why you’re content to ignore that and portray this as being about their physical size.
 
Julio3000 said:
At what point is that an accurate reflection of the substance of her complaint? You’re framing this as an issue of a title IX complaint being somehow based on the disparity in their size. If you read the document—which is his legal filing and as such provides the most favorable view of his actions—you’ll see that the complaint was based on his unwillingness to leave her alone, to respect boundaries, to avoid unwanted physical contact, all after repeated requests...it meets the standard for harrassment and/or stalking. And, by the admission of his own lawyer, it wasn’t the first time he’d stalked or harassed a female instructor. So I’m asking why you’re content to ignore that and portray this as being about their physical size.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the summary of the rest of the charges. I was a bit more focused and concerned that she indicated that the boys size was a factor in the case.
 
sturg33 said:
I appreciate the summary of the rest of the charges. I was a bit more focused and concerned that she indicated that the boys size was a factor in the case.
Click to expand...

We are all free to focus on what we wish. But in a lot of these matters you bring to our attention you focus on details that are absurd and really tangential to the issue at hand. Kind of like having a book about a mass murderer that focuses on how kind he or she was to animals.

The quotes you cite from Scroggs sound ridiculous. But they aren't the heart of the matter are they.
 
Last edited:
I saw this story covered in two media outlets with a particular ideological slant. Both presented it as a man getting in trouble either for asking a girl on a date, or for being physically larger than a girl. Your highlighting of that, if unaware of the rest of the story, may have been in good faith, but the presentation of the story that way by those outlets certainly was not. It’s clickbait, sure, but it’s insidious because it tends to invalidate the very real experience of harassment here, and of that experience in general. I’d say it actually supports the opposite point of view from what the headlines suggest. It also, IMO, says something about what these outlets think of their readers.
 
Julio3000 said:
I saw this story covered in two media outlets with a particular ideological slant. Both presented it as a man getting in trouble either for asking a girl on a date, or for being physically larger than a girl. Your highlighting of that, if unaware of the rest of the story, may have been in good faith, but the presentation of the story that way by those outlets certainly was not. It’s clickbait, sure, but it’s insidious because it tends to invalidate the very real experience of harassment here, and of that experience in general. I’d say it actually supports the opposite point of view from what the headlines suggest. It also, IMO, says something about what these outlets think of their readers.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to acknowledge the title 9 concerns, because it signals to me that an admin can go to great lengths to punish someone.

For this story, I saw the tweet posted about 7 or 8 times and finally made my way over here.

But your point is fair and well-taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top