Are you sure they weren't just referencing your love of prostitutes?
Are you sure they weren't just referencing your love of prostitutes?
My dad swam at Princeton and graduated in '86. He has been a big financial supporter, and said that he was livid over this. Apparently he and the other swimming alumni feel this has been blown out of proportion. He said that if email existed back then the whole team would be kicked off campus. I agree with him about how much this is getting blown out of proportion. Any guy who has competed on a team at a competitive collegiate level knows that this stuff is common nature...comes with the territory. Is it a good idea to share and communicate it via email? Hell no. But they shouldn't be suspended for the season. Princeton has developed a very strong program, and Rob Orr was the coach when my father was there and still is. They have a rich tradition, and I know how much they pour into their training. It's not fair to the seniors who could be competing for all American status. What if this happened to an Ivy League team that qualifies for NCAA's in XC and got suspended from NCAA's after the regional meet?
The central issue in all these email “scandals†is this; how much should people be punished for “saying†things? The assertion that people deserve to be punished for what they say, is the central idea of political correctness is so infuriating. Many of the message boards about these various email scandals quickly become sidetracked into arguing over whether the things said were sexist, racist, etc.; or whether the people involved were foolish to communicate in ways that would create a permanent record. But the bottom line is that all of these horrible things said, or tweeted, or emailed; were just words, not real actions.
People on the left will argue that offensive talk creates an environment that eventually leads to negative actions. However, it could also be argued that misogynist talk is a way for these young men to have an outlet for their rampant (potentially aggressive) sexual urges, without needing to act on them.
The difference in people’s approach to political correctness boils down to their assumptions about human nature. In general, people on the left want PC enforcement because they think the good or bad urges within people are the result of the environment/culture that people live in. While people on the right think that evil/good within the human heart is there no matter what culture you live in. Conservatives don’t see culture as the source of human evil, but rather a force that can restrain it in certain ways.
I’m speaking in generalities, because both liberal and conservative people will fall at different places on the “PC†scale depending on the issue. Conservatives want the FCC to prevent naughty words from being spoken in TV/Movies, whereas liberals want to stigmatize and denigrate anyone who states non-progressive political opinions. Both sides are guilty of trying to enforce censorship, but the difference in where they want it enforced has to do with their differing opinions on human nature.
In my opinion, people say all sorts of things, but it is what they choose to do that matters. People should primarily be judged on their actions and not their words. Humans talk and socializing in incredibly complex and varied ways based on the situation. Different people have different senses of humor, and it is an utter waste of time to try to judge their sense of humor or control what they say. Getting people to not say offensive things will not turn them into better people. It doesn’t matter how many soccer teams, or XC teams, or swim teams get suspended; campus rape will still happen, rich people will not want to give their money away, and everyone will continue to feel uncomfortable and untrusting of people in other economic/cultural/racial/political groups. Offensive talk is just a symptom of the evil within people’s hearts. Trying to prevent the symptom will not fix the underlying problem.
just frees up money to help with title 9 adherence.
No need for sports at University.
The US is under bolshevik rule. LOL
Soros and his ilk are your masters, and that's why they are going batsh** crazy over Trump. Trump is a symptom, the sign that harder and much more direct men are on the horizon as leaders. We are living in Weimar II, with the same ethnocentric, incredibly nepotistic hypocrites in charge, people who claim to be perpetual victims while in fact ruining almost every nation where they reside. LOL Get ready, the action hasn't even started yet.
I wonder if it's got anything to do with the fact that most of the schools (think: Ivy League) with "email-type" scandals don't rely heavily on athletics for prestige, fundraising...etc, and so they don't stand to lose much by canceling a season.
Maybe a school which relies heavily on their sports teams (example: Alabama football, which draws millions of fundraising dollars/year) would sweep a situation like this under the rug rather than punish the program or make an example of the team.
I wonder if it's got anything to do with the fact that most of the schools (think: Ivy League) with "email-type" scandals don't rely heavily on athletics for prestige, fundraising...etc, and so they don't stand to lose much by canceling a season.Maybe a school which relies heavily on their sports teams (example: Alabama football, which draws millions of fundraising dollars/year) would sweep a situation like this under the rug rather than punish the program or make an example of the team.Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7949726&page=2#ixzz4T86GR5pL
rojo wrote:
jjjjjj wrote:The idea of rating people? Wherever would anyone in an Ivy League school get that idea? Was it maybe from the Princeton University admissions and PR department, which live off of rating individuals and publicizing Princeton's ratings? And which is most absurd, rating the perceived looks of individuals, the academic ability and future potential in life of high school seniors, or the academic quality of an entire college or university?
I'd say that it is completely obvious that it is far easier to arrive at a consensus on looks, where the criteria and object to be rated are quite clear, than on a consensus concerning the ability and academic potential of students or a consensus on a university where criteria are in dispute, differences in accepted criteria change the order of schools ranked, and what is to be rated is essentially a set of heterogeneous professors, departments, courses, and facilities.
Your post is an interesting one. Why are we seeing this only with Ivy League schools?
1) Is it because the Ivy Leaguers are more likely to be judging others at say your average schools? There whole lives they've been trying to be "the best" and they chose the school in part because it's "the best". They take a lot of pride in being the best and this carries over once they are there. A student at random state u doesn't think "I'm the greatest student in the history of the world and so special" so they don't rate people as much?
2) The administrators at these schools are just more uptight than at other schools.
3) Other reason that I can't think of.
I wonder if it's got anything to do with the fact that most of the schools (think: Ivy League) with "email-type" scandals don't rely heavily on athletics for prestige, fundraising...etc, and so they don't stand to lose much by canceling a season.
Maybe a school which relies heavily on their sports teams (example: Alabama football, which draws millions of fundraising dollars/year) would sweep a situation like this under the rug rather than punish the program or make an example of the team.
They should be suspended for being retarded. Jesus, who sends emails about this? Text or snapchat is the way to go. Or make a private and anonymous social media page and use fake accounts to access it.
High school and college kids have done this for years for a laugh and rarely got caught.
Middle school girls may not use vulgar language with this stuff, but I would bet money that they have much more hurtful intent.
I was once told not to send anything over university email that I wouldn't want printed on the front page of the newspaper. It's a pretty simple concept, really.
I'm sorry Rojo, but Gavin Mcinnes is not very clever. He is very not clever.
Justdothemath wrote:
Junk Master wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how the Texas Hugh Grant is a compliment?
What does that mean?
An effete metrosexual in a land of beer bellied, buck toothed, hicks?
Kind of gay looking for a state known mainly for fat guys.
Skinny and wears clean pants?
No Matthew Mcconaughey.
It's a savagely backhanded "compliment" to most men, but Rojo is a legend in his own eyes so that's not how he sees it.
What rating would Rojo get in his red Speedo, the one he wore in the Santa Fun Run last week?
rojo wrote:
jjjjjj wrote:The idea of rating people? Wherever would anyone in an Ivy League school get that idea? Was it maybe from the Princeton University admissions and PR department, which live off of rating individuals and publicizing Princeton's ratings? And which is most absurd, rating the perceived looks of individuals, the academic ability and future potential in life of high school seniors, or the academic quality of an entire college or university?
I'd say that it is completely obvious that it is far easier to arrive at a consensus on looks, where the criteria and object to be rated are quite clear, than on a consensus concerning the ability and academic potential of students or a consensus on a university where criteria are in dispute, differences in accepted criteria change the order of schools ranked, and what is to be rated is essentially a set of heterogeneous professors, departments, courses, and facilities.
Your post is an interesting one. Why are we seeing this only with Ivy League schools?
1) Is it because the Ivy Leaguers are more likely to be judging others at say your average schools? There whole lives they've been trying to be "the best" and they chose the school in part because it's "the best". They take a lot of pride in being the best and this carries over once they are there. A student at random state u doesn't think "I'm the greatest student in the history of the world and so special" so they don't rate people as much?
2) The administrators at these schools are just more uptight than at other schools.
3) Other reason that I can't think of.
Because only Ivy leaguers are big enough dweebs to use e-mail.
Does anyone know what was actually written? The OP's link only included the useless jargon of the university officials.
We need to see what all this fuss is about.
10 bucks says it's not that big of a deal.
You can dismiss this as the overzealous work of the "PC police" if you wish. But the better question is why allegedfy intelligent young adult men at highly regarded colleges would feel compelled to behave like boorish 14-year-olds. Because there's no defensible answer to that.
celery wrote:
The central issue in all these email “scandals†is this; how much should people be punished for “saying†things? The assertion that people deserve to be punished for what they say, is the central idea of political correctness is so infuriating. Many of the message boards about these various email scandals quickly become sidetracked into arguing over whether the things said were sexist, racist, etc.; or whether the people involved were foolish to communicate in ways that would create a permanent record. But the bottom line is that all of these horrible things said, or tweeted, or emailed; were just words, not real actions.
People on the left will argue that offensive talk creates an environment that eventually leads to negative actions. However, it could also be argued that misogynist talk is a way for these young men to have an outlet for their rampant (potentially aggressive) sexual urges, without needing to act on them.
The difference in people’s approach to political correctness boils down to their assumptions about human nature. In general, people on the left want PC enforcement because they think the good or bad urges within people are the result of the environment/culture that people live in. While people on the right think that evil/good within the human heart is there no matter what culture you live in. Conservatives don’t see culture as the source of human evil, but rather a force that can restrain it in certain ways.
I’m speaking in generalities, because both liberal and conservative people will fall at different places on the “PC†scale depending on the issue. Conservatives want the FCC to prevent naughty words from being spoken in TV/Movies, whereas liberals want to stigmatize and denigrate anyone who states non-progressive political opinions. Both sides are guilty of trying to enforce censorship, but the difference in where they want it enforced has to do with their differing opinions on human nature.
In my opinion, people say all sorts of things, but it is what they choose to do that matters. People should primarily be judged on their actions and not their words. Humans talk and socializing in incredibly complex and varied ways based on the situation. Different people have different senses of humor, and it is an utter waste of time to try to judge their sense of humor or control what they say. Getting people to not say offensive things will not turn them into better people. It doesn’t matter how many soccer teams, or XC teams, or swim teams get suspended; campus rape will still happen, rich people will not want to give their money away, and everyone will continue to feel uncomfortable and untrusting of people in other economic/cultural/racial/political groups. Offensive talk is just a symptom of the evil within people’s hearts. Trying to prevent the symptom will not fix the underlying problem.
Great post. You are spot on that actions speak louder than words. It is tough to determine where to draw the line when someone says something so evil that it merits a punishment. But a bunch of these university email "he-said/she-said" scandals are blown out of proportion, and you're right: they're just words!
On a random note: how is it ok for Trump to get away with locker room talk, but not normal everyday athletes? This is a weird world we live in. I actually don't care either way about Trump, I just thought it's funny that we can elect someone president who talked like these athletes do, but now we punish the athletes? Shouldn't we now let athletes talk like Trump? I mean, he is our leader now. Just a bunch of weird inconsistencies in our society.
Gainfully Stupid wrote:
You can dismiss this as the overzealous work of the "PC police" if you wish. But the better question is why allegedfy intelligent young adult men at highly regarded colleges would feel compelled to behave like boorish 14-year-olds. Because there's no defensible answer to that.
Agreed. Their season should be canceled and they should be suspended from school because they sometimes act immaturely.
Interesting take on it. People say some really shitty things though. This whole rating women on a scale of 1 to 10 is pretty disgusting to me. This offensive talk is extremely widespread in our culture. This is all a symptom of the tainted evil hearts? I like to think that some day we can progress as a society and learn to be decent to each other and not be such a-holes. It seems like you're saying humans are sh*tbags by nature.
need context wrote:
On a random note: how is it ok for Trump to get away with locker room talk, but not normal everyday athletes? This is a weird world we live in. I actually don't care either way about Trump, I just thought it's funny that we can elect someone president who talked like these athletes do, but now we punish the athletes? Shouldn't we now let athletes talk like Trump? I mean, he is our leader now. Just a bunch of weird inconsistencies in our society.
Universities are still holding on to the hope of a civilized society.
yerp wrote:
I was once told not to send anything over university email that I wouldn't want printed on the front page of the newspaper. It's a pretty simple concept, really.
... a surprisingly elusive concept for some student-athletes.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday