I find posts mocking women to be offensive. They detract from my enjoyment of mgoblog, as do racist and homophobic posts. I know that mods delete posts with racists slur. Personally, I feel the same thing should be done with posts that contain words like "broads" or otherwise denigrate women. Could a mod weigh in on this subject?
I would agree if people were only upset about the factual inaccuracies in the movie. They're not, though. Lots of people feel that it portrays Muslims unfairly and encourages prejudicial and racist attitudes towards Muslims.
Obviously, lots of people disagree, but it's still a relevant discussion to have. The fact that it's meant to entertain doesn't mean it can't have a larger cultural impact, or offend certain segments of the population. In fact, art frequently drives larger conversations about society. So I don't get why the fact that it's meant to entertain means nobody should ever be offended by it.
Are you sure? I just called and they said they wouldn't have last minute service. I wouldn't be surprised if the rep I spoke to was just confused. Can you point to anything confirming last minute service? I'm trying to figure out whether to wait or pull the trigger today.
I think it would do society a lot of good if men spent some time contemplating why exactly they think one of these sentences is ok and the other is bad.
Read this article for a more thorough argument. The fact that 1 player left the country doesn't make the NCAA any less of a cartel. That's not standard that the case will be measured against.
I haven't read the article by Granderson, but I think Seth's point has to do with Omitted Variable Bias. If you add a race variable and attempt to measure the effect of race without also controlling for variables that are correlated with both race and the output variable, your estimates will most likely be biased. If you don't include a measure of poverty, then you won't be able to parse out what portion of the effect is due to race and what portion is due to poverty. Since both are also correlated with region, I think Seth made a prudent decision to keep his model simple and basically say, "it's hard to tell what's happening."
1) There is peer reviewed research to support the claim so it's not unfounded.
2) I really don't see the problem with the university creating its own standards of behavior and expelling students who don't meet them. If I sexually assault my coworker and she doesn't bring criminal charges my employer could still fire me for creating a hostile environment. And they wouldn't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
How does this differ than a workplace sexual misconduct finding that results in termination? I'm guessing there might be a legal precedent that gives students additional protections, but from my layperson's perspective I don't see much of a difference. In both cases it makes sense that an organization would set up their own system to resolve the complaint.
Do you think it's a problem that 19% of undergrad women report being victims of sexual assault during college? I do. And I think it's clear that the justice system has been unable to curtail the epidemic. So schools are stepping up to ensure a safe environment. I think schools should definitely consider the costs of potentially expelling innocent students, but that should be weighed against the benefit of protecting potential victims.
If you were merely expressing concern about potential consequences of the new protocols I don't think most people would disagree. But you're painting this as Obama Oppresses Men.
Add in your disgusting defense of Lewan and your failure to ever even acknowledge that rape on college campuses is a real problem and you just come off as a misogynistic nut job.
Observing that the DoE directive was a factor is perfectly fine. Going on rants about kangaroo courts and asserting that it's understandable that Lewan attempted to intimidate the victim (indirectly via bile statements to her friends) is what prompts the claims of extremism. That and saying stuff that's not true.
Becker is a conservative economist at The University of Chicago who has typically argued for low taxes, less government spending, and less regulation. Here, he argues that the status quo is contrary to free market principles and to US anti-trust law. Law professor Richard Posner has a companion piece that is linked to at the top of Becker's column.
Anyways, I'm not angling for a political debate on free markets. I just thought you might find this line of argumentation interesting given your stated predisposition.
As UW acknowledged, the police report is difficult to decipher because all the names are redacted, but it appears that Lewan made multiple threatening comments to the victim's friends. Then UM police warned him to stop and notified the Dean. So, the police interpreted his actions as threatening to the victim.
And regardless of the hair-splitting about exactly to whom he made those offensive comments, they are still completely disgusting and reprehensible. And yet, you insist on defending him - "you get him." I cannot even fathom it.
Why should I waste my time rebutting a biased opinion piece, when you won't address the fact that sexual assault is rampant on college campuses? Or the multitude of cases in which university administrations are accused of ignoring/covering up rape accusations? Or defend your claim that Gibbons was falsely accused? Or explain why rape jokes are OK if you're really pissed off?
Section 1 is a parody of an insufferable old man yelling GET OFF MY LAWN. In many instances (i.e., concussions, exploitation of athletes, Title IX), it has been my observation that Section 1 rides in on his rather high horse to defend the status quo. But that's just like my opinion, man and I didn't feel like writing a wall of text to articulate it. So I mocked him. Because he's ridiculous.
If I had been so inclined, I would have pointed out that James Taranto is indeed a journalist, but more specifically, he's a conservative columnist. And the quoted piece was an opinion column in the WSJ. WSJ's news department has a good reputation but their editorial page is extremely conservative. Both WSJ and Taranto have an agenda and the tone of the column belies the writer's bias. I could find lots of colums from Slate or Mother Jones on the issue of rape on college campus that draw the opposite conclusion, but I don't think they would be very effective at changing Section 1's mind.
Earlier in the thread, I noted that, according to the CDC, 19% of undergrad women will be sexually assaulted during college. And there are numerous stories of women dropping out and/or harming themselves after university administrations refused to take action when there was credible evidence of sexual assault, but no criminal conviction. There are multiple federal suits against universities alleging they've violated Title IX by failing to respond appropriately to rape accusations. Expelling Gibbons is in direct response to those concerns. I think it's fine to question the use of extra-judicial discipline and point out that Gibbons was never found guilty of a crime, but his screed was absurdly over the top.
His priorities are insane. I mean, elsewhere in this thread, the guy defends Taylor Lewan, who joked that he would rape the victim if she pressed charges. I quote, "I GET TAYLOR LEWAN. HE WAS PISSED." He also concludes that Gibbons was falsely accused, because he wasn't prosecuted. Isn't that just as moronic (Section 1's word) as presuming guilt? The guy isn't here to have an honest discourse. He's here to throw bombs and say offensive shit. And he deserves to be mocked for it.
Whether or not there was a cover up, it seems clear that sexual assault is a serious problem on most college campuses. According to the CDC, 18% of women are sexually assaulted at some point in their life and 38% of victims were assaulted during ages 18-24. Additionally, 19% of undergrad women were victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while at college. Link: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf
There's also substantial anecdotal evidence that the policies/procedures in place at many schools fail to protect vulnerable students and/or victims. Hopefully, this can be a catalyst that causes UofM to become a leader on the issue. That would be a great example of the Michigan Difference.
But not because he drafted KCP. I mean, we're not even half way through their rookie years. Acting as if it's just a fact that Burke is the better prospect and then calling people idiots base on that supposed fact is a little silly.
I think the Wisconsin situation is not really analagous. They fired they're brand new coach who had installed a new technique. When they fired him, they went back to coaching the old technique that the players had a history of executing succesfully.
It was directed at you, but it was just an observation. I don't know scheme from a hole in the ground. Your arguments seem well reasoned, just think your tone can be a bit vehement and dismissive, which may be why you're getting so much pushback.
To be clear, as BISB said, this is much better than a lot of the arguments on the board. Just a suggestion for further improvement.
Im A little short on time so I'll be brief. I think your post was thoughtful, but I still disagree substantially. I think the semi pro thing is a red herring because the ncaa's existence distorts the market. I also don't think legal associates or internships are analogous because they don't occur to explicit collusion. Medical residents is an interesting example although healthcare is a unique market. In the end, I don't find examples of other market distortions persuasive evidence that we should tolerate this particular distortion.
I think the existence of the NCAA as cartel creates significant barriers to entry. In that context, your recommendation is basically a nonstarter. You're saying players have other options without acknowledging that these options are undermined by the existence of a cartel.
And the players are typically unionized and negotiate a cba. I think you're being too dismissive of the power of this cartel, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe read that article by Becker and Posner and see if you still feel the same way.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply that the nfl was a free market. There are two critical differences though: 1) the nfl players have a union and negotiate a cba and 2) congress gave the nfl an antitrust exception.
Their value on the semipro market is low because semipro leagues are filling a low cost, low quality niche, given the current equilibrium enforced by NFL age restrictions and the NCAA cartel. I don't question that a four year scholarship to M is a better deal than playing in the AFL. That doesn't mean that top CFB players are receiving market clearing wages. It's basically indisputable that if the NCAA didn't limit compensation that players would receive a higer level of compensation than they do now from schools like UM, PSU, Alabama, etc. Just because there are market options (AFL, USFL, etc) does not mean the entire market is free. An entire segment of the market has formed a cartel.
If you're really interested in having a genuine debate and not just trying to score cheap points, I think you should look into the implications of your argument a little further. I never said that the AFL or any other semipro league offers superior compensation. I just pointed out that universities use a cartel in the form of the NCAA to limit compensation.
Sure, but this logic can be applied to the labor market in general. For instance, some of the revenue generated by apple is the result of employee value and some is the result of the apple brand. It's almost impossible to parcel that out correctly, but that's why we have a competitive labor market to figure it out for us. It seems obvious that some players are paid below their market value. Otherwise, the NCAA wouldn't have to enforce restrictions on player restriction. Hell, you wouldn't even need the restrictions in the first place.
In addition to what doctor wolverine said, Michigan is free to increase the compensation of PhD candidates. In athletics they have committed, via the NCAA, to explicit limits on compensation. Big difference, IMO.
Just to clarify, I don't support the ban. I'm fairly new but I liked chitownblue and ShockFX's posts. Maybe it's just because I agreed with them a lot.
Recent Comments
Obviously, lots of people disagree, but it's still a relevant discussion to have. The fact that it's meant to entertain doesn't mean it can't have a larger cultural impact, or offend certain segments of the population. In fact, art frequently drives larger conversations about society. So I don't get why the fact that it's meant to entertain means nobody should ever be offended by it.
Read this article for a more thorough argument. The fact that 1 player left the country doesn't make the NCAA any less of a cartel. That's not standard that the case will be measured against.
I haven't read the article by Granderson, but I think Seth's point has to do with Omitted Variable Bias. If you add a race variable and attempt to measure the effect of race without also controlling for variables that are correlated with both race and the output variable, your estimates will most likely be biased. If you don't include a measure of poverty, then you won't be able to parse out what portion of the effect is due to race and what portion is due to poverty. Since both are also correlated with region, I think Seth made a prudent decision to keep his model simple and basically say, "it's hard to tell what's happening."
2) I really don't see the problem with the university creating its own standards of behavior and expelling students who don't meet them. If I sexually assault my coworker and she doesn't bring criminal charges my employer could still fire me for creating a hostile environment. And they wouldn't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think the university should consider the rights if the accused, but they also have an epidemic that the justice system seems ill suited to address.
If you were merely expressing concern about potential consequences of the new protocols I don't think most people would disagree. But you're painting this as Obama Oppresses Men.
Add in your disgusting defense of Lewan and your failure to ever even acknowledge that rape on college campuses is a real problem and you just come off as a misogynistic nut job.
Becker is a conservative economist at The University of Chicago who has typically argued for low taxes, less government spending, and less regulation. Here, he argues that the status quo is contrary to free market principles and to US anti-trust law. Law professor Richard Posner has a companion piece that is linked to at the top of Becker's column.
Anyways, I'm not angling for a political debate on free markets. I just thought you might find this line of argumentation interesting given your stated predisposition.
As UW acknowledged, the police report is difficult to decipher because all the names are redacted, but it appears that Lewan made multiple threatening comments to the victim's friends. Then UM police warned him to stop and notified the Dean. So, the police interpreted his actions as threatening to the victim.
And regardless of the hair-splitting about exactly to whom he made those offensive comments, they are still completely disgusting and reprehensible. And yet, you insist on defending him - "you get him." I cannot even fathom it.
Why should I waste my time rebutting a biased opinion piece, when you won't address the fact that sexual assault is rampant on college campuses? Or the multitude of cases in which university administrations are accused of ignoring/covering up rape accusations? Or defend your claim that Gibbons was falsely accused? Or explain why rape jokes are OK if you're really pissed off?
What's the deal with the two letter deal you always put at the end of your comments?
Section 1 is a parody of an insufferable old man yelling GET OFF MY LAWN. In many instances (i.e., concussions, exploitation of athletes, Title IX), it has been my observation that Section 1 rides in on his rather high horse to defend the status quo. But that's just like my opinion, man and I didn't feel like writing a wall of text to articulate it. So I mocked him. Because he's ridiculous.
If I had been so inclined, I would have pointed out that James Taranto is indeed a journalist, but more specifically, he's a conservative columnist. And the quoted piece was an opinion column in the WSJ. WSJ's news department has a good reputation but their editorial page is extremely conservative. Both WSJ and Taranto have an agenda and the tone of the column belies the writer's bias. I could find lots of colums from Slate or Mother Jones on the issue of rape on college campus that draw the opposite conclusion, but I don't think they would be very effective at changing Section 1's mind.
Earlier in the thread, I noted that, according to the CDC, 19% of undergrad women will be sexually assaulted during college. And there are numerous stories of women dropping out and/or harming themselves after university administrations refused to take action when there was credible evidence of sexual assault, but no criminal conviction. There are multiple federal suits against universities alleging they've violated Title IX by failing to respond appropriately to rape accusations. Expelling Gibbons is in direct response to those concerns. I think it's fine to question the use of extra-judicial discipline and point out that Gibbons was never found guilty of a crime, but his screed was absurdly over the top.
His priorities are insane. I mean, elsewhere in this thread, the guy defends Taylor Lewan, who joked that he would rape the victim if she pressed charges. I quote, "I GET TAYLOR LEWAN. HE WAS PISSED." He also concludes that Gibbons was falsely accused, because he wasn't prosecuted. Isn't that just as moronic (Section 1's word) as presuming guilt? The guy isn't here to have an honest discourse. He's here to throw bombs and say offensive shit. And he deserves to be mocked for it.
There's also substantial anecdotal evidence that the policies/procedures in place at many schools fail to protect vulnerable students and/or victims. Hopefully, this can be a catalyst that causes UofM to become a leader on the issue. That would be a great example of the Michigan Difference.
Pretty sure she was born in Texas.
I think the Wisconsin situation is not really analagous. They fired they're brand new coach who had installed a new technique. When they fired him, they went back to coaching the old technique that the players had a history of executing succesfully.
It happens to the best of us.
It was directed at you, but it was just an observation. I don't know scheme from a hole in the ground. Your arguments seem well reasoned, just think your tone can be a bit vehement and dismissive, which may be why you're getting so much pushback.
To be clear, as BISB said, this is much better than a lot of the arguments on the board. Just a suggestion for further improvement.
You have a tendency to declare yourself right and others wrong. I think that rubs some people the wrong way. Might be something to consider.
Their value on the semipro market is low because semipro leagues are filling a low cost, low quality niche, given the current equilibrium enforced by NFL age restrictions and the NCAA cartel. I don't question that a four year scholarship to M is a better deal than playing in the AFL. That doesn't mean that top CFB players are receiving market clearing wages. It's basically indisputable that if the NCAA didn't limit compensation that players would receive a higer level of compensation than they do now from schools like UM, PSU, Alabama, etc. Just because there are market options (AFL, USFL, etc) does not mean the entire market is free. An entire segment of the market has formed a cartel.
If you're really interested in having a genuine debate and not just trying to score cheap points, I think you should look into the implications of your argument a little further. I never said that the AFL or any other semipro league offers superior compensation. I just pointed out that universities use a cartel in the form of the NCAA to limit compensation.
Here's a UofC economist and attorney explaining it: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-becker.html
Yeah, but political correctness is destroying america or something.
Just to clarify, I don't support the ban. I'm fairly new but I liked chitownblue and ShockFX's posts. Maybe it's just because I agreed with them a lot.
I love weird stuff and this is definitely very weird.
ShockFX as well.