The PC police have struck again, coach gets fired.

Lazy L wrote:

Great point. If political correctness does nothing more than get you to think before you speak or act, then it has value in society.

It's like the ACLU - sometimes it goes overboard, but I'm sure as hell glad it's there.

The anti-Christian Liberal's Union has very little value in society. They waste tons of money on very insignificant and meaningless issues. Liberals always hide behind the Constitution, forgetting that it was actually penned a few centuries back. People do not possess freedom of speech as a basic right, they possess freedom of "informed" speech. Huge difference.

That said, what this particular coach said is downright funny actually, and terribly appropriate as a motivational tool. But liberals and the PC police want everything watered down and softened in society. No more spanking your kinds, no more tough love, accommodation for everyone, mediocrity is tolerated, let's discontinue keeping score in youth soccer games so no one gets hurt feelings. Yep, they will successfully undermine America's competitive edge until we become Europe. But, by the time that happens, Western Europe will be close to being absorbed into the Muslim Caliphate anyway. It's already happening, what with European Muslims openly wearing t-shirts that talk about Arab domination of Europe by 2030.

what exactly does "political correctness" have to do with firing a coach for instructing his team of underage young men to touch themselves in front of him and each other? there is nothing PC/liberal/conservative/religious about this.

and does anyone else find it hilarious that this anti-liberal individual wants to eviscerate the constitution and make it a "living" document? i'm sure he's all for reading the 2nd amendment out of the constitution too.

one last thing, is "spanking your kinds" some sort of new euphemism for masturbation? i guess it is appropriate to bring that up in response to this coach's behavior.

kaitainen wrote:

what exactly does "political correctness" have to do with firing a coach for instructing his team of underage young men to touch themselves in front of him and each other? there is nothing PC/liberal/conservative/religious about this.

and does anyone else find it hilarious that this anti-liberal individual wants to eviscerate the constitution and make it a "living" document? i'm sure he's all for reading the 2nd amendment out of the constitution too.

one last thing, is "spanking your kinds" some sort of new euphemism for masturbation? i guess it is appropriate to bring that up in response to this coach's behavior.

Ah yes, nice of you to join kaitenen, the flaming, self-aggrandizing pseudo-economist. As to your points, firstly, he was simply telling them to "check their manhood," not to reveal it to him or their teammates. Pretty friggin' hilarious. I've had coaches like that in the past too and thank goodness for it. Secondly, never said the Constitution should be observed merely for its historical significance exclusively, but even the right to bear arms was written in an era when muskets took forever to load, unlike today's bullet-proof vest piercing kalashnikovs that are way too easily acquired by lost teenagers whose parents either don't parent or are way to tolerant in their standards of punishment. And thirdly, nice, original, compelling recognition of a typo, which I'm sure you've never made. You revealed the third-grader you are with that last comment, and you should peer into your very own panties and make sure your pussie is still attached after that comment.

so let me get this straight: christians are for adults requiring boys under their charge to perform lewd acts in front of them.

chuck d wrote:

so let me get this straight: christians are for adults requiring boys under their charge to perform lewd acts in front of them.

That's actually pretty funny, particularly as I am not in anyway defending Christians. To think that the ACLU is nothing more than a bureaucratically-constipated overreaching regulatory entity is not the equivalent of being Christian. Nice try, but you'll have to do better.

you're the one who brought up christians, not me.

I just came in from the cold and haven't located my manhood yet....and I'm standing right over the john. Any coaches out there who can help me out?

I'm a big of a fan as Evangelicals as I am the ACLU. I was simply throwing around a commonly-used acronym, not of my own making, obviously. You're the one who tried to distort the commentary to take a shot at evangelicals, which is, in a way, pretty funny. But seeing as how you THINK you were taking a shot at ME, you'll have to do better.

got it. so it's just you that is for adults requiring boys under their charge to perform lewd acts in front of them.

Yes, because, as an authority figure, telling someone to "check their manhood" as a somewhat rhetorical, motivational tool is so very much the same as telling them to pop it out in front of everyone or to ask them if you yourself can see it or touch it. While you're at it Chuck D., because you simply cannot refuse to try to get a shot in at me, who you don't know any better than kaitenen, and because you are revealing your own support of the ACLU since this is SO personal for you, why don't you check your own balls to see if they're still there.

And your best response is to continue asking other posters to "check your own balls." Wow, that's a good one.

It is one thing for a coach to ask his players to "check their manhood" metaphorically speaking.

It is another thing altogether if he makes his players touch their manhood in front of everyone else in the lockerroom.

I've had some hardass coaches in my day, and I've never minded anything they did. I reacted well to their hardass ways. But actually making you touch yourself is way out of line. This has nothing to do with PC...

Hey this sounds like what I've been doing for years, only I help them.

Rush L. wrote:

And your best response is to continue asking other posters to "check your own balls." Wow, that's a good one.

Man, I so anticipated this response that I almost wrote it out myself just to pre-empt some teenager doing it first. But I refused, thinking that no one was that sophomoric. It's about as creative and insightful as pointing out a typo.

clarity wrote:

It is one thing for a coach to ask his players to "check their manhood" metaphorically speaking.

It is another thing altogether if he makes his players touch their manhood in front of everyone else in the lockerroom.

I've had some hardass coaches in my day, and I've never minded anything they did. I reacted well to their hardass ways. But actually making you touch yourself is way out of line. This has nothing to do with PC...

Dude, the guy was calling out his players in a very abrasive Bobby Knight-kind of way. I seriously doubt his intentions were malicious or unsavory. Personally, if it was my kid, I would have thought it was funny. Now if, on the other hand, he made the players pull it out in front of everyone, then I'd be the first one in line calling for the coach's head. Gee, I wonder how long before some other poster refers to the fact that I used the word head, thinking he's oh-so-clever.

He he he he.....you said "head".

I was sure this was going to be about Matt Centrowitz getting canned at American, for his gruff and crude manner. (glad it wasn't).

ACLU is ruining America wrote:

Dude, the guy was calling out his players in a very abrasive Bobby Knight-kind of way. I seriously doubt his intentions were malicious or unsavory. Personally, if it was my kid, I would have thought it was funny. Now if, on the other hand, he made the players pull it out in front of everyone, then I'd be the first one in line calling for the coach's head. Gee, I wonder how long before some other poster refers to the fact that I used the word head, thinking he's oh-so-clever.

Did you, by any chance, read the article? He didn't make them "pull it out," per se, but he did make them all stand up, stick their hands down their pants and feel themselves up to be sure that their manhood was still there.

you're obviously standing up for a less popular position on this thread, and i respect you for that.

but you didn't respond to my main point. you did respond to my snarky comment about your typo (and yes i have tons of typos in my post and i don't think i was putting you down for making a typo, just making light of it). and i appreciate that you apparently have a consistent view of the constitution. it surprises me, but it is good to hear.

back to my only point that was actually relevant to this thread. if you want to respond to this post, please address it:

"what exactly does "political correctness" have to do with firing a coach for instructing his team of underage young men to touch themselves in front of him and each other? there is nothing PC/liberal/conservative/religious about this."

finally, i certainly never claimed to be an economist. self-aggrandizing? perhaps. flaming? i try not to, but sometimes i do. economist? surely not.