You Have The Right To Be Offended [And Open Thread]

Everytime I think we’ve reached peak progtard stupidity they stoop to new lows. Today’s example, ESPN.

Seems they decided to remove their scheduled announcer for a College Football game between The University of Virginia and William and Mary college. His offense? His name.

Yep, a man of asian heritage name Robert Lee announcing a college football game might be offensive.

You know what? Frack that. Everyone has the right to take offense.

No one has the right to prevent anyone other than themselves from offering offense.

Even when offense is offered, the individual it is offered to DECIDES whether to take offense, or not.

It this offends you, suck it up. Take as much offense as you can carry and carry it as far from me as you can, because I will not tolerate your whining.

And Open Thread since no one should have to tolerate our whining single note author.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
When White Americans Whitewashed History
  • Hank_M

    This is indeed peak stupidity.

    But do I really have this right? The left, the people slandering the right with accusations of being hateful bigots, racists, nazi’s and worse, are worried about people being offended by a persons name?

    • Indeed you do. Time to apply the new rules and proceed directly to “Fuck you.”

    • Brian Brandt

      Peak stupidity? Don’t be too sure. Every time I think they’ve jumped the shark and can’t get any sillier . . . they get sillier.

      • I could have sworn I said that in my original post…

        • Brian Brandt

          Did you? I apologize. Perhaps I didn’t read it carefully enough. In any case, I think we agree that the circus continues in spite of the fact that Barnum & Bailey had to take down the tent.

  • pennywit

    I read about this. More than a little idiocy there. There’s also this poor fellow. Whatever you might think of his message, I think his method of executing it — dressing in a Confederate uniform, going to a statue of Robert E. Lee and saluting it for a long while — is precisely the sort of speech that ought to be tolerated, not punished. From what I can tell the kid more or less minded his own business. If people wanted to disagree with him, fine. But no call for his school to expel him.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      Yeah, he certainly should not have been tossed out of school.

      Of course I was also surprised that there are schools where women are not allowed to wear pants.

      • Scalia

        There are a lot of fundamentalists who eschew the wearing of pants by women. They do not, by far, comprise the majority, but many of them continue to exercise that belief.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          I am certainly glad I went to school at a time and place where mini-skirts were the norm. I am guessing that is not the case at this young man’s school as I have been reading about the culture at that particular institution.

          Oh well, to each his own; the women that attend there made the choice and I am sure they were aware of the dress code.

          • Scalia

            Actually, as a Christian, I think it’s refreshing to see a Christian college or institution upholding standards of decency, including dress codes. The Christian lifestyle should not be a Michael Jackson or a Britney Spears look-alike event.

          • Wild_Willie

            The Amish also hold to tradition. Moral’s are stronger in that community. With stronger morals comes stronger decency and civility.

          • pennywit

            I think it’s refreshing to see a Christian college or institution upholding standards of decency, including dress codes.

            I think it’s one thing to say “dress nicely” or “business casual” or “dress modestly” and apply it to an entire student body. But it’s quite another to specifically target women with a requirement like that. I think it’s part and parcel of the mentality that part of a woman’s responsibility is not to tempt men or to cause them to “stumble.” Apart from being blatantly sexist, that kind of approach also relieves men of responsibility for their own actions.

          • Scalia

            Pensacola Christian College (PCC) has extensive dress regulations for males and females, so they’re not targeting women. Christians still believe there’s a difference between men and women, so the standards will, by definition, be different for each sex.

            That type of fundamentalist thinking does not relieve men of “responsibility” when it comes to their behavior. I don’t know where you got that from. Every Christian bears a responsibility not to provide an occasion of stumbling for others, and that includes being responsible with our dress. PCC may enforce standards far stricter than most churches, but a review of the pictures of their student body discloses nothing extreme. They look good, clean and wholesome. As a Christian, I think that’s a good thing. I’m tired of seeing so-called Christians look like slobs and hookers.

          • pennywit

            That type of fundamentalist thinking does not relieve men of “responsibility” when it comes to their behavior. I don’t know where you got that from

            I’ve seen it come up in the context of handling sexual assault cases. It has been alleged that several schools ignored women’s sexual-assualt complaints or attempted to make the women feel responsible for their assault:

            https://newrepublic.com/article/116623/sexual-assault-patrick-henry-college-gods-harvard

            http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/students-christian-college-reports-sexual-assault-article-1.3343109

            http://www.xojane.com/issues/samantha-field-pensacola-christian-college-rape-stalking

          • Scalia

            I can only say that Christian doctrine does not absolve men of blame for their sinful actions. I didn’t read all your links, but I know through extensive experience that men and boys are not treated any differently than females when it comes to sinful behavior.

          • pennywit

            In your opinion, if a female student at a Christian college reports a sexual assault to her university, should the school interrogate her about her sin?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            If it goes to court will they ask what she was wearing?

          • Retired military

            I don’t care if she was walking around stark naked with a “Screw me” Sign around her neck in 47 different languages. If she said no then it meant no and if whoever she said no to touched her than it is assault at the least.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Well, of course.

          • Scalia

            That’s a pretty obscure question. If the student in question acted in violation of school rules, she would have to be disciplined for that, but the sexual assault is a different issue. If an assault can be proved, then the offender should be reported to the police and expelled from school. The female student should not be disciplined for being assaulted.

          • pennywit

            I’ve been following stories regarding universities’ sexual-assault proceedings for a while now. Over the last few years, public universities have been rightly pilloried for sexual-assault adjudication procedures that deny accused rapists. On the other hand, there are reports that evangelical Christian schools have pressured women to forgive the men who assaulted them rather than press charges, or that school officials have urged the women to focus on their own sins rather than take an even-handed approach to the matter. In the press, I’ve seen these allegations arise regarding Bob Jones University, Patrick Henry College, and Pensacola Christian College.

            However evenhanded the intent behind some of these schools’ rules, their application seems wanting.

          • Scalia

            So, allegations are true?

          • pennywit

            The allegations of sexual assault? Or the allegations that the universities mishandled them?

          • Scalia

            The mishandling.

          • pennywit

            Obviously, I can’t get out and interview administrators, victims, and accused myself. But there’s enough reporting on the topic — and enough allegations raised — to make me believe there’s truth to it. In 2014, the New Republic reported:

            Claire was not the first female student to leave PHC disillusioned with the administration she had trusted to protect her. Other female students who say they reported sexual assault or harassment to the administration also left feeling that school officials blamed them instead of holding the accused male students accountable. The administration, they say, seemed much more concerned with protecting Patrick Henry’s pristine public image.

            Also in 2014, an independent evangelical organization investigated Bob Jones University and found it had mishandled allegations The NYT reported on the report.

            And Samantha Field raised allegations about Pensacola in 2014 — and other women reported similar experiences there.

            That’s about when the issue last appeared on my radar. I can’t be certain whether the colleges have changed their processes since then.

          • Scalia

            If they are mishandling criminal allegations, then the responsible parties should be prosecuted. However, this side discussion has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. You were finding fault with the college for its “sexist” dress code. Having distinct dress requirements for males and females isn’t sexist.

          • pennywit

            I will stipulate up front that these universities have the right to conduct their internal business however they choose, as long as laws aren’t broken and people aren’t getting hurt. If a student gets to one of those universities, he has no place to be “shocked, shocked” at the university’s code of conduct. That student should have known the code going in. If the student didn’t know that code, the student did a poor job of finding a suitable college.

            Before responding to this, I glanced over the Bob Jones University student conduct code, the Patrick Henry College Code, and the Pensacola student conduct code. These universities don’t just restrict student dress. They extend into students’ conduct, both on and off-campus, as part of an effort to ensure that students are living within a particular definition of Christ’s word. The rules restrict dress, language, alcohol consumption, media consumption, entertainment, conduct with members of the opposite sex, occult rituals, and dancing.

            Is a 19-year-old American, male or female, is an adult or a child? Legally, a 19-year-old is an adult, with almost all the rights of any other adult. (I think drinking is the only thing we deny a 19-year-old). But these student codes assume that the 19-year-old student is a child who must be constantly supervised and punished for an infraction as innocuous as watching HBO on Sunday night. I think this approach infantilizes students. It displays a lack of confidence in these ostensible adults’ ability to make even the most trifling decisions.

            The dress codes’ very specificity underlines that lack of confidence. They don’t just entreat students to wear nice clothes to class and their Sunday best to church. They mandate certain kinds of clothing, down to the types of shoes that may be worn and required lengths of skirts.

            But is it sexist? Yes, I think it is. Partly because in a wider Western world that tells women they can wear pants if they so choose, these Christian universities mandate that female students must wear skirts and promise discipline if a skirt is too far above the knee.

            The codes also promote the ideal that certain things (pants, business suits) are reserved for men, and certain things (dresses, jewelry) are for women. It plays into a very traditional culture of gender roles that Hannah Rosin noted in God’s Harvard, her book on Patrick Henry College: the notion that the man works, and a woman’s place is in the home, raising children.

          • Retired military

            “Before responding to this, I glanced over …”

            You have entirely too much time on your hands. 🙂

          • pennywit

            I also spend time arguing with people who retired from the military.

          • Retired military

            Yeah so do I.

          • Scalia

            The school in question is a private, Christian institution and as such, as you acknowledge, may insist that all students affirm Christianity and live as Christians as they define it. Christians who similarly define Christianity would want to attend such a school. The same goes for churches. There are churches, synagogues and mosques which preach a code of conduct that is expected of all members. It doesn’t merely apply to worship services, but it touches every aspect of their lives. One should not be surprised when a Christian school insists that its students and faculty live like Christians.

            The Bible teaches distinct roles for men and women and that includes dress and appearance (De. 22:5, 1 Cor. 11:14-15), so it is not surprising that Christians who believe in the current applicability of those verses conform to what they believe they teach. They see themselves conforming to God’s purpose as expressed in His word and in natural law. They, and I, see nothing “sexist” about it.

            Since secularists don’t like biblical prescriptions with respect to male/female relationships, that’s sufficient to call those who disagree sexists. Such a label is an empty pejorative which is usually employed to insult and/or foreclose discussion. In that light, a sexist is simply a bigot who wants to enslave women. It may be convenient to call names, but it does nothing to advance a discussion.

            God made males and females with distinct physical attributes and roles. People who don’t like it rebel in various ways. They deny His existence or they “amend” His rules to suit their preferences. Nothing changes, and nothing will change until the Judgment.

          • pennywit

            Taking men and women, then telling them “You have this role, you have that role, and anything else is morally wrong,” is one of the textbook definitions of sexism. Particularly if one of the precepts is that one gender must submit to the other gender’s leadership.

          • Scalia

            No, the textbook definition of “sexism” is an irrational prejudice which is bigotry. Biblical Christians believe there are rational justifications for distinct male/female relationships.

            I get it that you don’t like it because it conflicts with your worldview which includes a rejection of God’s existence and, therefore, the inspiration of the Bible. I could argue that given that your moral worldview reduces to might makes right, your objection that sexism is somehow immoral carries no water.

          • pennywit

            I could argue that given that your moral worldview reduces to might makes right, your objection that sexism is somehow immoral carries no water.

            No … my stance is that people should have equal opportunities. Prescribing gender roles cuts off those opportunities.

          • Scalia

            No, your stance is the social compact theory. You dropped out of our previous discussion along that line. I think that “might makes right” is the unavoidable consequence of your moral system. Since this is an open thread, we can take that up again.

            Your insistence that people have “equal opportunities” is simply your bias that has no moral force for those outside your “compact.” And for those within your compact, if they voluntarily signed up, they can voluntarily leave. I see no rational basis for your system other than your insistence that it should hold.

            Bottom line: Theists believe in God and believe that He has provide guidelines which correspond with natural law. Included therein are distinct roles for males and females. You don’t believe in God, and you reject those “guidelines.” That’s your business, but calling something “sexist” does nothing to advance a discussion.

          • It’s not intended to “advance a discussion.” It’s meant to shut it down.

          • pennywit

            Not quite. I’m fully invested in a discussion over whether prescribed gender roles are, or are not, sexist, and why.

          • Citizens in voluntary associations following the prescriptions of their shared religion owe neither you nor me any explanations.

          • pennywit

            Owe? No. But are certainly capable of offering them. Do you have thoughts on the issue?

          • Yes. That it is their business. That business is none of yours.

          • pennywit

            Your insistence that people have “equal opportunities” is simply your bias that has no moral force for those outside your “compact.” And for those within your compact, if they voluntarily signed up, they can voluntarily leave. I see no rational basis for your system other than your insistence that it should hold.

            Well, that’s the fun part. If people leave that social contract, they end up in the natural world — nasty, brutish, and short, as they say — and where might really does make right. A social contract that preserves rights for all — a good framework — levels that playing field somewhat.

            Theists believe in God and believe that He has provide guidelines which correspond with natural law. Included therein are distinct roles for males and females.

            So let me get this straight … a woman should stay in the house, wear certain kinds of clothing, be deprived of opportunity, and treated as economic chattel because God says so?

          • Still overpriced, still not understanding that this nation was founded to protect the free practice of religion, not to suppress religious freedom.

            Oh, and it begins to sound as if you are offended by the notion that some people really do care about issues as informed by “God says so.”

          • pennywit

            Still overpriced, still not understanding that this nation was founded to protect the free practice of religion, not to suppress religious freedom.

            Never said a person can’t do it. But I’m certainly free to criticize a religious doctrine if I so choose. Or would you like the United States to enact blasphemy laws so I can be hanged for heresy?

          • Was, or was not, this nation founded to secure religious liberty?

            Does, or does not, the Constitution of the United States explicitly assert the right of the people to practice their religion freely.

          • pennywit

            You are correct. The Constitution does or does not.

          • How equivocal and unprincipled of you.

          • pennywit

            You’re the one who phrased it as a statement.

          • Since corrected. ATQ.

          • pennywit

            Was, or was not, this nation founded to secure religious liberty?

            Interesting question.

            1) Several of the colonies were formed by religious dissidents, although many of them had little tolerance for dissident faiths once they got here.

            2) The state (United States of America) was founded not to secure religious liberty, but to break away from a monarchy that (among other outrages) foisted taxes on the Colonies without providing representation in Parliament. If George and his administrators had been more flexible, then today we might be singing “God Save the Queen.”

            Does, or does not, the Constitution of the United States explicitly assert the right of the people to practice their religion freely?

            It does not. The First Amendment restrains the federal government from interfering with the individual right to practice religion. This amendment was later incorporated against the states (an implicit reading) via the Fourteenth Amendment.

            Most states have adopted religious-freedom regimes congruent with the federal regime.

            The same regime that prohibits state interference with the free exercise of religion also guarantees my right to criticize the religions and/or religious doctrine.

          • To which those communities would respond: Thank you for sharing. Have a nice day.

          • You are the one using “sexism” to shut down discussion.

          • Scalia

            No, the “fun part” is people have the right to do anything they please under your system. That reduces to might makes right. Nothing rationally obligates anybody to abide by any compact, and even if an argument can somehow be constructed to justify such an obligation, nations like Iran have their own compact wherein they can throw gays off of high-rise buildings and stone women for getting raped.

            So let me get this straight … a woman should stay in the house, wear certain kinds of clothing, be deprived of opportunity, and treated as economic chattel because God says so?

            That’s their “social compact.” Remember, men and women have the right to do anything they please, so you have no rational basis to condemn their beliefs.

          • pennywit

            Remember, men and women have the right to do anything they please, so you have no rational basis to condemn their beliefs.

            I have every basis, actually. I know a good contract vs. bad contract when I see it, and I can recognize oppression when I see it as well .. whether it’s a religious or a secular doctrine.

          • Odd that you don’t see oppression in your mirror…

          • pennywit

            I’m not oppressing anybody. I’m just saying that I think a particular opinion is wrong.

          • Explaining “shut up” is indeed a mild form thereof.

          • Scalia

            That’s entirely subjective. Once you cede that humans have the right to do anything they please, subject to a voluntary compact, you have no rational basis to condemn their acts. If one human subject known as pennywit can condemn a fundamentalist’s compact, another human subject can equally condemn pennywit’s compact. pennywit claims that each human subject has a right to do as s/he pleases, so pennywit’s condemnation is entirely subjective and is, therefore, not morally persuasive.

          • pennywit

            Careful about chasing yourself in that circle, Scalia. You might bite your own tail.

          • Scalia

            Non-responsive.

          • pennywit

            Actually, I don’t think I’ve heard you answer to my first question … why is mandating gender roles not sexist? And, no, I’m not trying to shut down discussion. I want to know why. Yes, I’ll pick apart at the reasoning, just as you pick at mine.

          • Scalia

            I think I’ve answered that indirectly. On what basis are you calling anything sexist? You’re using that as a pejorative, but your stated belief is that men have the right to subjugate women, rape babies and kill gays. If they don’t enter your compact, you have no moral basis to condemn their acts. If you claim the right to force them to abide by your compact, then you can only do so if you have the might to compel compliance. That reduces to might makes right. Consequently, your question is incoherent.

            Moreover, I’ve stated that distinct roles for men and women can be rationally defended given the theology upon which the conclusion is based. Since bigotry is irrational by definition, my position cannot be sexist.

          • pennywit

            Well, this is certainly productive.

            Let me explain it one more time.

            On what basis are you calling anything sexist?

            Asked and answered. On the basis of lost personal and economic opportunity, denied on the basis of gender.

            your stated belief is that men have the right to subjugate women, rape babies and kill gays.

            A distortion, and you know it. I have said that in a state of nature, people will commit evil, brutish acts, and it is an undesirable state.

            Moreover, I’ve stated that distinct roles for men and women can be rationally defended given the theology upon which the conclusion is based. Since bigotry is irrational by definition, my position cannot be sexist.

            Hogwash. You’ve said they “can be” rationally defended, but you haven’t bother to offer that rational defense. What is that rational defense?

          • Scalia

            Asked and answered. On the basis of lost personal and economic opportunity, denied on the basis of gender.

            Already answered. It’s your opinion that it’s wrong to deprive others of economic opportunity. Others disagree. On what basis is your opinion superior to theirs. Social contract theory cannot promote one theory over another.

            A distortion, and you know it.

            No, it isn’t. I don’t have time now to track down your previous statement, and your repeated deletions of your account probably mean that it no longer exists, but you previously stated that all humans have the “right” to do anything they please, given the natural state of things. I pressed you on whether that means a man has the right to rape a girl on an island where no compact exists. You did not deny that and backed out of the discussion. You may not like the implications of your beliefs, but they are unavoidable.

            I have said that in a state of nature, people will commit evil, brutish acts, and it is an undesirable state.

            You DID NOT state that in our previous discussion. You must be confusing our debate with one you had with somebody else, but given you’re now stating that there are certain “evil” acts outside a social compact, you’ve now officially abandoned SCT because according to it, morality is defined by the compact. More incoherence on your part.

            Hogwash. You’ve said they “can be” rationally defended, but you haven’t bother to offer that rational defense.

            It is correct that I’ve not offered a full-blown theological defense of my beliefs. I would first have to argue in favor of the existence of God and then defend the metaphysical implications of that argument as first expounded by Aristotle and expanded by Aquinas. Since you think that belief in God’s existence is irrational, everything else that follows is, by definition, irrational in your opinion.

            It is enough for me to show that your beliefs are internally contradictory and therefore incoherent.

          • pennywit

            You must be confusing our debate with one you had with somebody else, but given you’re now stating that there are certain “evil” acts outside a social compact, you’ve now officially abandoned SCT because according to it, morality is defined by the compact. More incoherence on your part.

            I don’t recall my opinions changing. I’ve always held that a social contract is necessary as a baseline; without it, we just kill each other. But that’s something of a macro view. On a more day-to-day basis, I tend to be something of a rule utilitarian.

            I would first have to argue in favor of the existence of God and then defend the metaphysical implications of that argument as first expounded by Aristotle and expanded by Aquinas.

            I don’t think you have to. Believe it or not, I accept that you start from God’s existence as a postulate. I’m not going to convince you that’s wrong, and you’re not going to convince me I’m right.

            But I do think it’s appropriate to discuss the notion of gender roles. I assert that the idea that “men must do one thing, women must do another” is sexist. You disagree. Do you disagree because you simply believe biblical law cannot be sexist? Or do you have some other basis for disagreeing?

          • Scalia

            If your opinion hasn’t changed, then you cannot affirm that acts outside the compact are evil. According to SCT, morality is defined by the compact, so you appear to be at odds with yourself.

            Your postulating God’s existence isn’t sufficient, because it is how God exists that gives us an understanding of the metaphysical implications of His existence. To understand those implications, we have to understand God’s existence and how our current existence corresponds with the created order. Given those parameters, our conclusions rationally follow therefrom. One can reason rationally from false premises, but once you grant the premises, you cannot claim the conclusions are irrational. Consequently, our position cannot be “sexist” because there is nothing irrational about the natural order of things.

            To put it another way, you would have to attack the existence of God as we define it in order to attack the rationality of our conclusions. If you’re really interested in the argument, I suggest, as a primer, Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

          • pennywit

            I’ve had the opportunity to research the treatment of women in several parts of the world, both in the modern world and (to a limited extent) historically. Whether you talk about Saudi Arabia’s guardian system, Haredi who attempt to silence women, the now-obsolete practice of sati, or Western treatment of women before the suffragette movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there’s a common thread.

            People cite religion to support the practice. HIndus, Muslims, Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews, it springs from the same root — people who think that God has ordained that men should stand ahead, and women should stand behind. If I accept the god postulate, I see two possibilities. One is that God has ordained different roles, as you say, for men and women, and has little issue with how that has played out on Earth. The second possibility is that people in power tend to interpret scripture in a way that confirms their biases — and it is up to others to implement a more equal regime.

          • You have a right to your own opinion just as you have the right to be offended and on the same terms.

          • Retired military

            I haven’t seen the above allegations regarding Christian schools. If they are in fact true I think the people doing the pressuring needs to be fired and never get another job around students again. Nor do I think the schools should automatically punish the male who is accused. That is why the police needs to be called. They are generally not an interested party in who the outcome goes against reputationwise unlike, the school, the accuser or the accusee.

          • Retired military

            I think the cops should be called no matter what. They are better trained than faculty to determine if a crime has taken place.

          • Scalia

            Yes, of course. All students should be instructed to report all criminal behavior to law enforcement.

          • Retired military

            I think in all cases of reported sexual assault the cops should be called in. The colleges just want to preserve their “good name” and make the stuff go away. Your question seems to make the assumption that another student was guilty of the assault. That isn’t always the case.

          • pennywit

            With respect, I do not assume that. Rather, I believe that an allegation should be handled seriously, without violating the rights or dignity of accuser or accused.

          • Retired military

            I agree with your handling of an allegation. But IMO the school has no business other than reporting to the proper authorities and providing whatever health services the student requires and ensuring the safety of the campus. Also if the student was assaulted no “sin” was committed.

          • pennywit

            This is where things get ticklish. As far as I’m concerned, the campus’s kangaroo court can go stuff it on the issue of expulsions, suspensions, exclusion from school activities, etc., etc. Those punishments can be meted out if an accused has been found guilty in a court of law.

            The question of campus safety is a little more ticklish. Investigating and adjudicating a sexual-assault case can take a couple years. In the interim, should an accused rapist have access to the campus? To campus residential halls? A court can issue a restraining order prohibiting the accused from coming within X feet of the accuser. But (again) that can take time. Should a college be able to implement something more stringent in the meantime?

          • Scalia

            I don’t know why campus safety is a “ticklish” situation for you. A court has no authority to punish a person who has not been convicted. Similarly, a school has no moral right to punish a student who is not proved to have committed an infraction. If a school “can go stuff it on the issue of expulsions…” then on your standard they must take their hands off until the justice system runs its course.

            If a student is successful in obtaining a restraining order against another student, the only thing a school can do is accommodate separate facilities if said students have the same class. The onus of staying away is on the person slapped with the order. The school has nothing to do with it. If both parties shop at Wal-Mart or go to the same church, neither institution is responsible for enforcing the RO. Nothing ticklish at all.

          • Retired military

            Trouble is in today’s society if the guy goes out and rapes someone else (assuming he is guilty in the first place) then the school will likely get sued by the 2nd victim for not protecting her (rightly or wrongly) or for having him around on campus in the first place.

          • Scalia

            The has to be a legal basis for the lawsuit. If a man is a convicted sex offender, then the school must comply with the various reporting requirements to protect the institution from civil and/or criminal liability. If said school complies, it need not fear legal repercussion.

          • Retired military

            In a sane world yes. Have you taken a look outside lately? The lawyers sue hoping for a quick settlement and minimum publicity whether there is a good case or not. The school settles to keep its name out of the news and the unjustly accused student gets the punishment.

          • Scalia

            Yes, one has to factor the insanity of the masses. If a school is gun-shy, it’ll simply deny the offending student admission. Remember, I’m talking about a convicted sex offender. A school can simply reject said person’s application.

          • Retired military

            Sticky situation if the guy is innocent. I think that a restraining order should be automatically issued by a court for the guy to not go close to the woman. The college will have to deal with classes, living conditions, etc. Any other business would have to deal with the situation in a sane way. The college kangaroo courts are not sane IMO and do more harm than good.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            And when it goes to court they ask the victim about her sexual history and what she was wearing. Neither question is pertinent. Well unless, of course, she was wearing pants. LOL

          • Scalia

            He wasn’t asking about court; he was asking about the school interrogating her.

            In a courtroom, the judge decides what evidence is admissible, and if the accuser has a history of making false accusations, that’s perfectly relevant in a trial. Who she has slept with in the past is not relevant, unless of course, it was with the accuser. If that is the case, then there’s all kinds of wormy cans that will be opened.

          • pennywit

            The Christian lifestyle should not be a Michael Jackson or a Britney Spears look-alike event.

            Weirdly, this reminds me of “You Know They Have a Hell of a Band,” a Stephen King short story I read years ago. It’s a fun little read.

          • Retired military

            Is that like the 50 page short story by King called the Mist. The one where they made a 2 hour movie out of and then decided to do an entire series? I am watching the series but I have to ask how much longer can they freaking drag it out? Already fast forwarding through about half the show to get past the slow crap. you can only show crazy lady preaching so many times.

          • pennywit

            I recall The Mist taking up about 100-150 pages, actually. I usually stay away from Stephen King movies and TV shows, though. They seldom do the books justice, IMO.

          • Retired military

            Per Wikipedia it was 134 pages. Still not long enough for an entire season IMO without dragging it out like they have done.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Wasn’t the Shawshank Redemption based on one of his short stories? What a great movie. One of the main reasons I love that film is that they took it to a real conclusion. I thought the movie was over more than a few times, but they really tied up all of the loose ends.

            Probably among my top ten favorite films. I often concur with many critic’s lists of all time great films, although I often disagree with the inclusion of Citizen Kane. I realize it was innovative, but it is not among my favorites. Heck, I think A Touch of Evil was the best film directed by Orson Welles.

  • Retired military

    You have the right to be offended by just about anything. I, on the other hand, have the right to
    a. Not be offended by whatever you have your knickers in a twist about.
    b. to be offended by your stupidity
    c. I also have the absolute right to not give a flying fuck what you are offended by.
    and finally
    d. I also have the right to call you out because of your stupidity.

    Unfortunately liberals don’t seem to not only not understand all 4 of the items above but they cant seem to grasp even one of them.

    • pennywit

      I am offended by your lack of offense.

      • Too bad for you.

      • Retired military

        I am offended by you being offended.

        • pennywit

          I am not offended by your being offended at me being offended, but I am offended because you will inevitably be offended that I am not offended that you are offended by me being offended by your not being offended.

          • Retired military

            I could care less if you are not offended or offended or my not being offended or offended .

          • That’s properly phrased”I couldn’t care less.”. Thus indicating complete and utter disregard.

          • Retired military

            Corrected. Thanks

        • Brian Brandt

          You are, I assume, a white male Anglo-Saxon. Therefore, you being offended by anything doesn’t amount to anything. We WMAS don’t to be offended, or if we are, nobody cares.

          • Brian Brandt

            And I will add that if you are offended by anything, you will get called a Nazi white supremacist racist.

          • Retired military

            Actually my ancestry is mainly German. There is even a river in Germany with my family name. Does that help?

    • pennywit

      Also, I am offended by my hometown football team’s lack of offense. There’s no defense for it. And quite possible not much of a defense for the team, either.

      • Noted. I don’t care.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        I think Kizer will turn out to be the steal of the draft.

        • I believe you endorse theft.

        • pennywit

          I think Walter is about to like this.

        • Scalia

          By the way, I hate the Lions’ new uniforms.

          • pennywit

            The Detroit Lions Fan Police will visit you shortly to correct wrongthink.

          • Scalia

            Have you seen the uniform they wore against the Colts & Jets?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I agree, but they can wear anything as long as they win a few, but losing Decker and Hyder, while Ansah has a terminally sprained ankle does not bode well. Plus, look at the schedule, yikes!

            Has any fan base suffered longer than Lion’s fans?

            There best shot was the game against Dallas where the flag was picked up. They would have then faced Green Bay and it was the one year where they were probably better.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, I wouldn’t mind if they were winning, but it looks like another hard season ahead. How many times have I practically salivated at the prospect of a championship only to see the season crash over injuries and fluke plays?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            How can any team waste both Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson?

            So on this site we have fans of the Lions, Skins and Browns? Sad.

          • Scalia

            Well, the Lions went to the playoffs, including an NFC championship, several times while Sanders was playing with them, and Calvin had two playoff appearances. Gale Sayers never won a championship, and neither did Dan Marino.

            The Lions weren’t responsible for that reversed flag in the Dallas game. I agree with you (rare thing that is) that the Lions could have went a lot further that year.

            Anyway, why they haven’t been able to put all the parts together is something beyond my reason to comprehend.

          • Scalia

            They were positively awful today. This is going to be a long season.

      • Scalia

        Yeah, it looks like the ‘Skins will struggle this year.

        • pennywit

          At least Kirk Cousins managed to chisel some money out of Dan Snyder.

        • pennywit

          PS. Your use of the word “‘Skins'” is an insult to all competent Native American football players.

          • Scalia

            Excuse me, I should have said, “Redskins.”

          • Red, fore, whatever.

  • Retired military
    • Paul Hooson

      Oh, my goodness. Pretty funny parody!

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    Ah, the great uniter, Donald J. Trump, was at his best again last night.

    Anything about the sailors that died? No.

    Anything about the women that died in Charllotesville. No, this was not about that either.

    No, he spent his time chastising the evil media; always a crowd pleaser.

    Oh, and he also wanted to go after those pesky Democrats. Let’s see, the executive branch, both houses of Congress, a recent Supreme Court appointment and the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures and it is the Democrats fault?

    Yup, democracy and a free press are the obstacles that keep him from being an effective president.

    It appears none of this is about policy, but instead is nothing but a continuous airing of grievances on the endless Donald Trump Revenge Tour.

    I still contend he was not exactly thrilled with winning, which is why he spends so little time on the job. He wanted to lose narrowly, claim it was rigged and hold rallies where he could tell people, “I told you so.” He is like a stand up comedian that thrives on the attention and adulation of the crowd. He spends two weeks on vacation, stops by the White House and is immediately on to more pressing matters, a “rally” in Phoenix. I certainly cannot remember a president that was continually campaigning during his first year in office.

    Perhaps he simply quits as he shows little interest in the job and goes on a continual tour to complain that they simply wouldn’t let him do what he wanted.

    • Retired military

      “endless Donald Trump Revenge Tour”

      Better than the endless Obama apology tour.

      ” is immediately on to more pressing matters, a “rally” in Phoenix”

      I remember when Obama gave a speech on focusing like a laser on jobs right before he went on to his next round of golf.

    • We don’t care that you dislike President Trump. Take as much offense as you care to, and then take that offense and yourself somewhere where someone cares.

    • Scalia

      Ah, Busted is at his best again. Anything about left-wing violence? Anything about the Antifa terrorists? I didn’t think so.

    • Scalia

      Anything about the sailors that died? No.

      Since it means so much to you: HERE

      Anything about the women that died in Charllotesville. No, this was not about that either.

      Since it means so much to you: HERE

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Yes, I guess when you have a rally days after these two events they do not bear mentioning, but CNN, the Washington Post and ABC News were pressing matters.

        The main thing they do that portrays him in a negative light? They print his statements and show film footage of him doing his shtick.

        • Scalia

          The main thing is you’re criticizing him for not saying what he already said. You’re just a left-wing hack who’s looking for any excuse to criticize the president. Fine. That’s your business, but you have no moral platform to criticize others for being equally partisan.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I certainly hoped he would be different as I am a pragmatist at heart and hoped he would demonstrate some of those characteristics.

            I would rather he would succeed as it is better for the country, but he is consumed by petty arguments and has alienated most of our allies, in addition to most everyone in his own party.

            I would imagine even those that support him are somewhat fearful how it will all turn out.

            Wouldn’t he be happier teaming up with Bannon for some version of Trump TV?

            Trump himself has acknowledged that running a government is harder than he imagined and he certainly seems happiest when he is performing in front of a crowd.

            I am guessing there is a 30% chance he resigns. He had a pretty good life and if Mueller decides to go through all of his financial dealings over the years there will be something that can be construed as being outside the lines (Spiro Agnew ultimately pled no contest to not claiming $29,000 in income). We all know that when it comes to the Feds, right or wrong is not always part of the equation; they simply like to chalk up wins. Remember, Monica Lewinsky happened more than two years after Clinton was first investigated. Of course I don’t know if resigning ends the investigation.

          • Scalia

            I doubt he resigns, and your criticisms are merely polly-parrots of the MSM and RINOs. The faction that elected him is pretty loyal which is all that matters.

            Also, we couldn’t care less what you think about Trump. As I said, you’re merely trying to find any excuse to run him down. From the timing of his statements to criticizing him over not saying something he said, you’ll raise anything if you think it makes Trump look bad.

            We get it: You’re a political hack. No problem, but it means that every post of yours is viewed as empty political rhetoric. I hear pennywit’s criticisms because he’s not a hack. He’s thoughtful and objective. That’s something you appear incapable of achieving.

          • Which pennywit? They are a husband and wife posting under the same account.

          • pennywit

            FWIW, I suspect Manafort and Flynn are both toast, and one of the Trump family members (either Jared Kushner or Donald Jr.) will be implicated in some kind of campaign-related shenanigans when Mueller submits his report. I think Trump himself will likely remain in the clear unless he moves aggressively to protect somebody.

          • Retired military

            IMO that is worth about 2 cents and nothing more.

          • pennywit

            Take what you will from it. Mueller’s gone relatively quiet since the FBI searched Manafort’s house.

          • Bullshit.

        • Yes, the dhimmocrats and their subsidiaries with Bylines would like to set the agenda for the President of the United States. He is not obliged to take up that agenda. The angst that that seems to be generating in you is sweet schadenfreude.

        • jim_m

          If it were Obama, he would have been pissing on the graves of the soldiers by now and he would have ignored the death of a white woman entirely simply on account of her race.

    • Scalia

      By the way, Busted, a woman was killed at Charlottesville, not “women.” At least President Trump knows her name.

      The next time you’re shedding crocodile tears over her and would like to use her dead body for political advantage, her name is Heather Heyer. Knowing her name will make it sound like you actually care.

    • Olsoljer

      That offends me. Go fuck yourself.

  • Paul Hooson

    Hey, I’m not offended that Norman Jewison has a “Jewy” name, but isn’t Jewish. And neither am I offended that Robert Lee has nothing to with General Robert E. Lee…

    • yetanotherjohn

      Are you sure? Maybe Gen. Lee just had some cosmetic surgery. Can’t be to safe when it comes to special snowflakes.

      • “Too” vice “to,” not to be confused with two.

      • Retired military

        How did Gen Lee get cosmetic surgery? Did they turn it into a Ford?

    • Brian Brandt

      Well how about ‘Traveler’ the USC Trojan’s horse? We all know that horse breeding is big business in the South. Chances are that General Lee’s horse ‘Traveller’ is somewhere in the lineage.

      Also, don’t you think that ‘Trojans’ contributes to rape culture?

      • yetanotherjohn

        Trojans had slaves to. No peace until USC is burned to the ground to remove the offense.

      • pennywit

        I knew there was something Freudian about the whole “horse being let in through the gates” thing.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I am guessing the announcer in question would like to change his name to Bob Lee instead of Robert Lee, but there is already an ESPN personality named Bob Ley, so that may be problematic.

    • yetanotherjohn

      Given that Gen. Lee’s troops would refer to him as Bobby, I think Bob Costas should be banned also.

      • Brian Brandt

        How about Representative Sheila Jackson Lee?

        • yetanotherjohn

          I think we should be scanning confederate muster rolls looking for names. Of course, for every match we make, the dems have to remove a player (journalist, politician, judge, etc) from play.

        • Hang that beatch.

    • Rock ThisTown

      How about Robert, Rob or Bob Li . . . . . ?

  • pennywit

    I checked this morning in the shower, and I’m still a he.

    • Retired military

      Don’t you realize that male anatomy parts means squat when it comes to determining sex or gender.

      • pennywit

        I also killed an ate a buffalo. While still in the shower. I’m manly that way.

        • Retired military

          Was it like hand fed as a calf so you could just walk up to it and shoot it? Also has PETA been notified as to your abuse of animals?

          • What about People Eating Tasty Animals?

          • Retired military

            Buffalo has kinda a strong taste IMO. You can definitely tell it isn’t a cow.

          • I prefer Bison over Beef. It also tends to be leaner.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            There is an Amish market nearby that chops up a bison once every couple of weeks. I have to admit I now prefer bison meat and from what I understand it is far healthier.

            I will admit, however, that I prefer food that is raised to be eaten rather than wild game. I used to hunt, but I would give away deer and ducks that I shot as they are too gamy for me.

          • pennywit

            I learned a long time ago that at Thanksgiving time, a PETA activist does not like it when you say, “Yes, I support humane conditions for the birds. Free-range turkeys are delicious!”

          • pennywit

            shoot? Shoot? Nah. I did the deed with my bare hands!!!

        • Must have been a mighty small buffalo…

        • Scalia

          Bison.

        • and

  • cathymv

    Can you imagine how leftist heads would explode if they ever found a southern civil war military man with the last name of Trump!

    The idiocy of the left and the pc crowd has hit a new level of ridiculousness. First banning/destroying “offensive” monuments (which were never offensive before Trumps Presidency). Now banning people with “offensive” names. Next: banning/burning books that are “offensive” – banning/burning movies that are “offensive” – banning/jailing opponents with “offensive” opinions.

    How very hitleresque of these leftists……

    • Scalia

      Yes. They have morphed into what they claim to abjure.

    • pennywit

      If members of a community decide they no longer want to keep a Confederate statue on public land, and the local government (acting in accordance with proper processes) votes to remove that Confederate statue, the statue should remain because of your feels?

      • Strawman.

        • pennywit

          Real man. The Charlottesville riots started because the local city government voted to rename a park and remove the statue of General Lee.

          • The local government never put the question to the voters.

            When news of their decision got out a protest was organized and applied for an assembly permit. Granted, then rejected by Deputy Mayor.

            Went to court, protestors won. Permit issued by court’s order.

            Counter protest organized, Never so much as applied for a permit.

            State and local police surround and monitor the permitted protest, take no action to keep counter protesters away.

            Violence breaks out at the points of contact, with the legally assembled protesters preventing the counter protesters from infiltrating into the assembly area.

            Governor declared state of emergency, Riot act is read and permitted protest ordered to disperse. Police force dispersed protestors into the counter protestors.

          • pennywit

            The local government never put the question to the voters.

            How do you define “put the question to the voters?” Do you mean by holding a public hearing? Or by holding a plebiscite?

            The rest of your description is completely irrelevant to my original question: Is a local government that follows the prescribed process (holding hearings, voting, etc.) still obligated to preserve monuments because some people, including those outside the community, have their feels hurt?

          • A plebiscite would have been appropriate.

            The rest of my description is how local and state officials turned this into a bloody riot instead of a peaceful protest.

            Worked like a charm. How dare those proles challenge city hall. That’ll show them.

          • pennywit

            A plebiscite would have been appropriate

            I disagree rather strongly here. I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy. If you’re unhappy, speak out at city council meetings, challenge in court if you can find it, and ultimately … vote the bastards out at the next election.

          • We saw how the local government responded to being protested. A plebiscite is clearly called for.

    • Reversion to the mean.

  • How Fake News Is Made

    “Our leading media” are characterized by “indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly.”

    • Scalia

      Excellent piece that deserves a greater spotlight.

      EDIT: One thing I disagree with him about is he makes a distinction between liberalism and leftism. Today, those lines are blurred exceedingly.