How can Sam and Octo tell us they’re straight white men without telling us they’re straight white men?
Is there any actual need to rely on “judging by that” to come up with an immediate response to the situation? Is there anything wrong with finding out the details of what happened before you try to decide what its alleged deeper significance must be?
(Or are you just rushing to get in all the “Oh noes, the woke cancel culture, we hates it preciousss!!” wailing that you can, before having to cope with inconvenient actual facts?)
I don’t think this pearl-clutching hyperbole is accomplishing much for your advocacy here. Mostly, all it says is that all you’ve got at present is pearl-clutching hyperbole.
The irony is that they are the ones desperately seeking to be offended here.
Unsurprisingly, it begins to emerge that he did something worse that the initial vague story suggested; and the administration duly fired him (with the fig leaf of allowing him to resign). It’s beginning to sound something like a possibility I suggested earlier:
Yeah, at present absolutely all that we have heard from the resigning coach and his boss, AFAICT, is that they’re sad about the resignation but it’s the right thing to do.
Any reason we shouldn’t give these men the benefit of the doubt as responsible grownups and take their word for it, unless and until we have further information that leads us to think otherwise?
Because we think that low-intellect (not directed at anyone on this forum) Pavlovian responses to words is incompatible with a society based on the idea of intrinsic individual rights?
But at present you have zero actual evidence that the cause of this resignation WAS just “low-intellect Pavlovian responses to words”.
You’re just milking the current lack of public detailed information as hard as you can, in order to try to make “current lack of public detailed information about these events” look like “absence of valid reason for these events”.
How would it be incompatible? I figure that people have the right to say it, and that people have the right to respond to people saying it; and that a guy has the right to resign from a job, and — hang on; where, exactly, does an incompatibility come in?
I wasn’t changing the subject seeing I was referring to a culture and climate in which people are self-censoring for fear of severe repercussions. Whether that is “cancel culture” or not I don’t really care, it is harmful nonetheless.
Terrible isn’t it? There should be consequences for real bigotry and prejudice, I’ve always been consistent on that.
To me there is no distinction between “cancel cultures”. Whichever political or ideological toxic behaviours are in play, they are harmful. Book bans, death threats, illiberal laws and threats to freedom of speech and expression are concerns of mine no matter which side they come from. If you think that I’m not concerned about those behaviours from the right then I’m happy to put you straight.
I’m somewhat to the left of the traditional democrats and traditionally liberal to my core, my hatred of Trump and extreme polarised debate is a matter of record here. Take it as assumed that when I talk of such suppressive culture it applies in all circumstances regardless of political or ideological affiliation.
It isn’t a belief. Empirical data that contradicts a current ideological position has been withheld for fear of the consequences of voicing it. I don’t think it, I know it. I’ve seen the data and spoken to people who are unwilling to share it. They’ve told me exactly what they think will happen.
And this in a business that only exists and thrives on a bedrock of hard science and empirical facts.
Also, this is not a UK company and the people involved are not based in the UK even though I am.
Correct, but the common mistake being made is assuming that such distortion can only come from those they perceive to be on the opposite side. That clearly isn’t the case.
I agree. The coach was proactively pre-canceled by the OU administration/athletic department (including, in some part, the coach himself). This happened so OU could get ahead of the curve PR-wise. Which, when the coming cancel is inevitable, is a smart move.
There have to be some useful analogies with war, here. I’ll make a simple one but others can do better, I’m sure:
It’s basically choosing to surrender an army in the face of certain annihilation. In this analogy, was that army annihilated? No, but they were canceled and would have been either way so they chose the less painful.
But first the army blew up the only bridge that would have allowed them to escape, and then set their own ammunition on fire. They deserved to lose. You missed that part in your analogy.
To extend the analogy, the army general detonated a box of dynamite in his own camp. What I’m fascinated by is this idea that no transgression is so egregious that one might be fired (or resign) on the spot.
In this particular line of work, where you are working with Black players and issues of respect and leadership are most important, repeatedly saying a word that historically has been said by people who look like Cale Gundy to oppress, maim, and kill Black men, I don’t know if there’s any way back from that.
There are a thousand responses to a player not paying attention that are understandable and forgivable. In 2022, saying the n-word in any context as a White man who has leadership over Black men is the same as submitting your resignation letter. As Gundy did.
Without knowing him, if he was a true person of character, it’s entirely possible he made this decision on his own volition. He has a very prominent position at the pinnacle of his field which requires trust and holding oneself to the highest level of performance. He may have determined that he fell short of that, and as an alumnus of the university realized he needed to leave.
Of course most of us think there was pressure and I’m certain there was. Sometimes, though, people do the right thing and “take the L,” as the kids say. I do know this: his decision has probably saved his reputation and if he wants to coach again, this will be seen as a positive more than a negative.
On our local sports radio station today, the hosts listed probably a dozen football coaches who all said similar things and kept their jobs. The difference, of course, was that these often happened before social media was ubiquitous… and before June 2020.
If he had said it once inadvertently while reading from a tablet, I think he still has a job.
But the statement from the HC said he said it multiple times. That doesn’t happen unless one does so deliberately or possibly if one is too incompetent or stupid for such a high profile position.
You can play counterfactuals all day, but the facts in THIS case (at least as relayed by the people involved) are what they are - this wasn’t a single slip of the tongue.
Apropos of Nothing, but TCM dropped the N-word multiple times over the weekend. Burt Lancaster’s The Unforgiven (Audie Murphy no less!) and another one, not sure, I think it may have been one of Welles films. None of the disclaimers you are used to seeing beforehand.
But we don’t know exactly what happened. If “surrender an army” is “resign,” there are some possibilities:
- You surrendered the army because you realized you were in an unjust war.
- You surrendered the army because you were terrified of the great and powerful (and, let’s be clear, nonexistent) dragon that the grand vizier warned you about–a grand vizier who’s trying to manipulate you for his own purposes.
- You surrendered the army because the opposition army was actually that strong.
You seem to be jumping to #3, but #1 and #2 look pretty likely to me.
Regardless of whether you believe this incident is the result of the culture of cancellation that has erupted since June of 2020 or not, how does this individual’s resignation further the fight against racism?
I don’t believe it does, as I don’t believe that this particular coach is racist.
And yet he repeatedly said a word known to be offensive to the vast majority of people in front of a roomful of his “students”. If he’s not racist what is he, an idiot?
Well, his own past players have come to his defense that he is not racist.
Context is everything, even here.
If he wasn’t being intentionally racist, he’s too dumb to hold the job if he read the word aloud “multiple times”.
And he’ll still get a 7 figure payout. I’m not exactly feeling too sorry for him here.