Seton Hall disinvites Sid Rosenberg from March 10 Town Hall

[RU82]

Anyone who repeatedly equates black women to animals is probably up there as a decent application for “too offensive to be heard”

Well then don’t listen to him. And don’t attend events where he’ll be speaking. Problem solved.

 

[Section112]

No way Sid Rosenberg deserves 40+ posts. He's not that relevant.

 

[shu09]

No way Sid Rosenberg deserves 40+ posts. He's not that relevant.

Ha, true.

 

[sami]

I wasn't comparing the comments, you have to take things with the context in which they are said. That's an essential part of reading comprehension. If that's not a strength of yours, that's fine. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, calling a basketball player a "beast" or an "animal on the glass" is not offensive. What I'm trying to determine is if the poster Gucc thinks it is. Because in 2020, you just never know. This younger generation today thinks anything remotely controversial is offensive, bigoted, racist, homophobic, trans phobic, whatever "phobic," you name it. I'm trying to get more insight into their thinking.

Oh please, let’s not imply that you are trying to put the kid down in some sort of way with some agenda. No one would stretch to say that it is offensive to say that a player is playing like a beast on the glass. I didn’t even know who the hell Sid Rosenberg was before today but if he made comments about the willams sisters posing in National Geographic, he’s just an ass. Not sure why it would even be a debate, would think someone had to be somewhat of a decent human to be invited to speak. “******s play tennis” isn’t really the musings of a decent person.

 

[shu09]

We agree. As I said earlier on this thread, Sid Rosenberg is a dope, an idiot, whatever you want to call him.

 

[SHUSource]

Are you going to criticize basketball announcers when they say, for example, X player is a "beast" or an "animal on the glass?"

Of course, the context means everything, and I think you understand that. Using those words in this way is not at all the same as saying the Williams sisters would be better off posing nude in National Geographic than Playboy. And I can't think of a rhetorical equivalent a basketball announcer might employ that comes within a mile of saying the USWNT soccer players are a bunch of "juiced-up dykes."

I'm sure you can see the contextual difference. Sid Rosenberg just doesn't bring anything worth considering to any rational, intelligent argument about anything, and it's incredible that he was ever invited to speak at our university in the first place.

 

[SHUSource]

Huh?

I’m not outraged. I’m just disheartened by the sorry state of contemporary political correctness and virtue signaling that deems someone as harmless as Sid Rosenberg to be too offensive to be heard. That’s intellectually bankrupt.

Of course you are. You telegraph it by pulling the go-to tool out of the culture warrior's Big Bag of Outrage, "political correctness."

Political correctness is really nothing more than the practice of displaying sensitivity to people who aren't at the top of the power structure and recognizing that someone who doesn't occupy the racial, ethnic, or sexual "center" of a culture shouldn't be diminished by that fact alone. Basically, it's a way of showing respect for other people and not "punching down" -- always a bad look.

Is it carried to extremes at times by ideologues? Yes. It's akin to defending the right to speak at a university for someone like Sid Rosenberg - a bridge too far and not grounded in reason.

 

[sami]

Source, this thread should just die because no one is going to state it better than your last two posts. Although my reading comprehension is apparently compromised.

 

[SHUSource]

Well, once it goes to that other board, I'll never see it again, so that's my final thought no matter what.

It's not personal; shu09 is a great poster and RU82 has always been a welcome guest here - one of the good guys from there, for sure. I just couldn't disagree more with them on this. I do admit, though, that I am surprised I'm even talking about Sid Rosenberg at all, for any reason, in 2020.

 

[donnie_baseball]

It's not personal; shu09 is a great poster and RU82 has always been a welcome guest here - one of the good guys from there, for sure. I just couldn't disagree more with them on this. I do admit, though, that I am surprised I'm even talking about Sid Rosenberg at all, for any reason, in 2020.

One small point of contention -- it's not uncommon (even though you note by extremists) for political correctness to be "weaponized," leading some very level-headed, intelligent people to brush off the whole idea in practice.

Agree with the rest. And the Jerky Boys went out of vogue 20 years ago, at least!

 

[SHUSource]

One small point of contention -- it's not uncommon (even though you note by extremists) for political correctness to be "weaponized," leading some very level-headed, intelligent people to brush off the whole idea in practice.

Agree with the rest. And the Jerky Boys went out of vogue 20 years ago, at least!

I don't disagree that this happens - it's sort of what I mean by ideologues going overboard - but on the balance, it's not something I don't value in theory.

But "political correctness" is a term too often used as a cudgel by people whose livelihoods depend on the ability to have their bile-spewing sanctioned.

(And I'm glad for the Jerky Boys reference!)

 

[HALL85]

Our youngest daughter was a Drew grad, and they have some of the best and relevant speakers on campus every year. John Kelly, Jeff Flake, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, John Kerry, etc. Sid Rosenberg? Was Dice Clay too busy?