Huggins punishment

[JLoad22]

Spicolli is a made-up character, and a bumbling teenager to boot. I would choose not to base my moral compass on the words that Hollywood writers and producers put in his mouth (though I might has chuckled at them as a 12-year-old). Again, (Fast) times change. We hope to grow as a society, but we can only do so if everyone in the room agrees to reject the bigotry of the past and strive to be better. Yes, it is only my opinion, but I feel pretty good about holding it.

Cool man. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. We've gone from a society that didn't think twice about putting a word said JOKINGLY in a movie to one that wants to cancel your life if you say that same word in a JOKING manner. The funny thing is that many that want Huggins cancelled are bigots, themselves, but want to appear as "great people". Bigots suck. I'm glad I'm not one, but glad that I can also take a joke. I’ve been called derogatory names for a white person while playing sports and laughed as it was said jokingly. Enjoy your year.

 

[STL_Cat]

Spicolli called two guys that word in Fast Times and it was put in the movie. What a fake outrage society we live in now where so many want to position themselves as “compassionate.”

1.) It was a movie, he was playing a character. Spicolli is not a real person.

2.) FTARH is a 40 year old movie. Times change. Eminem used to use the word 75 times a song on the Marshall Mathers LP in 1999. He came out with a song called “Fall” in 2018 where he uses the word once, and it’s edited out. On every version (not just the clean version)

Times change

 

[CatPhight]

Spicolli called two guys that word in Fast Times and it was put in the movie. What a fake outrage society we live in now where so many want to position themselves as “compassionate.”

That was over 4 decades ago Baller, where have you been?

 

[VA/UK]

Hmmm. Gays can say queer and blacks can make millions by saying ******. Can someone please explain the woke rules to me?

 

[STL_Cat]

Hmmm. Gays can say queer and blacks can make millions by saying ******. Can someone please explain the woke rules to me?

It’s hilarious that I find myself being on this side of this conversation because I’m so far from a “woke culture” guy.

But I can make this one pretty simple, no ambiguity or unclear rules here. You can’t say f** on the radio. This one is pretty cut and dry.

 

[VA/UK]

It’s hilarious that I find myself being on this side of this conversation because I’m so far from a “woke culture” guy.

But I can make this one pretty simple, no ambiguity or unclear rules here. You can’t say f** on the radio. This one is pretty cut and dry.

I suppose you’re right, but why does Snoop Dog have immunity on the N word? Complete hypocrisy.

 

[STL_Cat]

I suppose you’re right, but why does Snoop Dog have immunity on the N word? Complete hypocrisy.

I don’t know man, I’m not gonna get into the rappers using the n word stuff. Snoop using the n word in his raps doesn’t give Huggins immunity to be an idiot here. This one is not an ambiguous “rule.”

 

[Verbal Kint II]

Spicolli called two guys that word in Fast Times and it was put in the movie. What a fake outrage society we live in now where so many want to position themselves as “compassionate.”

This guy hopes Ja Morant gets black balled from the league and talks about fake outrage society. It’s funny how fast they change up.

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

Once again, why aren't the Catholics getting some of this shake down money?

 

[bbncal02]

I suppose you’re right, but why does Snoop Dog have immunity on the N word? Complete hypocrisy.

As my Mom used to tell me, “just because others get away with it doesn’t make you doing it right.”

 

[bbncal02]

Hmmm. Gays can say queer and blacks can make millions by saying ******. Can someone please explain the woke rules to me?

Context matters too.

 

[VA/UK]

I don’t know man, I’m not gonna get into the rappers using the n word stuff. Snoop using the n word in his raps doesn’t give Huggins immunity to be an idiot here. This one is not an ambiguous “rule.”

So Snoop the black man has carte blanche to be an idiot, but Huggy the white man has no such carte blanche to be an idiot? Got it, MO FO!

 

[STL_Cat]

So Snoop the black man has carte blanche to be an idiot, but Huggy the white man has no such carte blanche to be an idiot? Got it, MO FO!

You just can’t say f** anymore man, don’t overcomplicate this.

 

[UKMKG]

I think you need to reread the book.

Have you actually read the book? Can’t imagine how anyone would interpret the current outrage machine as anything different that the thought police in 1984, or perhaps more insidiously, as Mustafa Mond from Brave New World.

That is unless you’re part of the party…

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

You guys are clearly ignorant to the history of what LGBTQ people have dealt with if you think this is just "the wrong word". It's a hateful slur used to dehumanize people. Look at the suicide rates in that community, this isn't just a bad joke or a insensitive word. There are numerous accounts in this thread from people who say they know of situations where a parent would basically rather their child die than come out as gay.

And the money is going to things like treating HIV/AIDS, help young LGBTQ people with their mental health so they don't commit suicide, and helping homeless people. I'd love to hear how that is "something you totally oppose".

Is any of the money going to treat and help people who think they can actually change genders? Because that's mental illness and I'm all in favor of helping the mentally ill. But, more than likely the money is going to advocate for gender "affirming" surgeries and/or hormone treatments that scar and harm people for the rest of their lives. THAT is what I oppose.
And before you start with the personal attacks and name-calling... I do not hate people who have these illnesses or choose to live a alternative lifestyle. But, I do oppose the abnormal and perverse lives they live. And because of that, LGBTQ advocacy groups come after people like me who dare hold the very legitimate and rational position that this behavior should not be accepted as normal or condoned as mainstream. That's why I'll never donate or bend a knee to the alphabet mafia.

 

[Verbal Kint II]

Have you actually read the book? Can’t imagine how anyone would interpret the current outrage machine as anything different that the thought police in 1984, or perhaps more insidiously, as Mustafa Mond from Brave New World.

That is unless you’re part of the party…

Right, there’s a group right outraged at Bud Light for sending a transgendered TikToker that no one with a job had ever heard of a beer. When I say outraged, they are OUTRAGED!

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

Right, there’s a group right outraged at Bud Light for sending a transgendered TikToker that no one with a job had ever heard of a beer. When I say outraged, they are OUTRAGED!

Surely you understand the moral chasm between deciding to vote with your pocketbook (boycotts), and cancel culture which would demand they shut down completely and or be shaken down for millions?
Btw, that "outraged" group is called their customer base. No one has any obligation to buy their products.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Surely you understand the moral chasm between deciding to vote with your pocketbook (boycotts), and cancel culture which would demand they shut down completely and or be shaken down for millions?
Btw, that "outraged" group is called their customer base. No one has any obligation to buy their products.

Numerous groups were lining up to start boycotts against CNN for the heinous crime of allowing Trump a forum to speak. Simply turning off their TV or changing channels wasn't enough. They were literally advocating boycotts against a presidential candidate's Right to free speech.

I don't think anyone has said Anheuser-Busch doesn't have the Right to put any picture on their product that they like. I think what millions have said that A-B as a company will have to pay a price for that action and implied support.
That's a huge difference.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

Have you actually read the book? Can’t imagine how anyone would interpret the current outrage machine as anything different that the thought police in 1984, or perhaps more insidiously, as Mustafa Mond from Brave New World.

That is unless you’re part of the party…

I've read the book a dozen times. I think you should probably read it again.

 

[UKMKG]

I've read the book a dozen times. I think you should probably read it again.

I read half of it again today. I think your comprehension is lacking.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

I read half of it again today. I think your comprehension is lacking.

Ok, well George Orwell, who wrote the book, is a self described democratic socialist and says the book is a warning about the govt enforcing a particular lifestyle and morality while simultaneously outlawing other lifestyles and and beliefs. He also says the book is not about society itself correcting sociological issues: meaning, it’s about the govt making moral decisions which is what you want. Huggins was not punished by the govt, he was punished by society which is what Orwell believes should happen. So again, maybe don’t talk about something you’re ignorant about.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Ok, well George Orwell, who wrote the book, is a self described democratic socialist and says the book is a warning about the govt enforcing a particular lifestyle and morality while simultaneously outlawing other lifestyles and and beliefs. He also says the book is not about society itself correcting sociological issues: meaning, it’s about the govt making moral decisions which is what you want. Huggins was not punished by the govt, he was punished by society which is what Orwell believes should happen. So again, maybe don’t talk about something you’re ignorant about.

In all honesty, I am confused by what you said. It wasn't society that punished Huggins but rather what I would consider to be an agent of the state. As a state university WVU, receives massive amounts of government funding. Wouldn't this be the "government" punishing Huggins? At the very least, we could say that this is a power structure doing the punishing, not society. I would appreciate you explaining why my thinking is wrong on this.

 

[christophero]

I think it was appropriate. He didn't lose his job; but got a suspension and a fine. He gets one more chance. If he loses his job now it's on him. And zero tolerance policy suggests there may have been other things. Zero tolerance makes it pretty easy to fire him now.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

In all honesty, I am confused by what you said. It wasn't society that punished Huggins but rather what I would consider to be an agent of the state. As a state university WVU, receives massive amounts of government funding. Wouldn't this be the "government" punishing Huggins? At the very least, we could say that this is a power structure doing the punishing, not society. I would appreciate you explaining why my thinking is wrong on this.

Because society is causing the backlash. He’s not being persecuted by the government. He is free to leave West Virginia, he is free to have any belief he wishes. However, if he chooses to run with those beliefs he is subjective to sociological backlash. He is not being persecuted by the government, he’s being monetarily punished for the punitive damage he has done to WVU in societies image. Orwell firmly believed anyone condemning or controlling any lifestyle was evil and said as much many times. He would abhor the use of that word As it impinges on another’s freedom of lifestyle. He was atheist and deeply against Christianity and believed it was used to control people. That’s what 1984 is about.

 

[UKMKG]

Orwell firmly believed anyone condemning or controlling any lifestyle was evil and said as much many times. He would abhor the use of that word As it impinges on another’s freedom of lifestyle. He was atheist and deeply against Christianity and believed it was used to control people. That’s what 1984 is about.

I bet you went to state university (if you have a degree) didn’t you? Because you are exhibiting postmodern reading comprehension to a T…simply reading what you want into the author’s intent and twisting it to fit your agenda.

The fact that you think 1984 is about the dangers of Christian morality proves no one should take your terrible opinion seriously.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

I bet you went to state university (if you have a degree) didn’t you? Because you are exhibiting postmodern reading comprehension to a T…simply reading what you want into the author’s intent and twisting it to fit your agenda.

The fact that you think 1984 is about the dangers of Christian morality proves no one should take your terrible opinion seriously.

Maybe you should read George Orwells own words on what he believes and the book is about. It says a lot about you though that you are literally trying to tell the author what he was writing about, yet you say I'm twisting to meet an agenda. You people have no self awareness at all.

 

[UKMKG]

Happy for you to share Orwell’s thoughts. Regardless, he was a disillusioned communist who knew the dangers of an authoritarian state that limits speech.

It has become crystal clear since the 40’s that atheistic totalitarianism is the seminal threat to freedom the world over with a body count in the millions since Orwell’s death.

That same secular authoritarianism is filling the pluralistic void in our country today and anyone with any sense can see the similarities with 1984 or more pointedly in Brave New World.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Because society is causing the backlash. He’s not being persecuted by the government. He is free to leave West Virginia, he is free to have any belief he wishes. However, if he chooses to run with those beliefs he is subjective to sociological backlash. He is not being persecuted by the government, he’s being monetarily punished for the punitive damage he has done to WVU in societies image. Orwell firmly believed anyone condemning or controlling any lifestyle was evil and said as much many times. He would abhor the use of that word As it impinges on another’s freedom of lifestyle. He was atheist and deeply against Christianity and believed it was used to control people. That’s what 1984 is about.

Before this thread, I knew virtually nothing about Orwells, mostly because I never really cared to know. However, after reading the comments, I did an internet search and read a number of articles that clearly say that your view is not accurate. I have no interest in debating the issue because it isn't that relevant to me other than just to understand this debate. But, according to numerous articles by academics, your view is simplistic and not really based on a full understanding of Orwell's beliefs. Thanks for replying but I honestly can't see your perspective as being anything other than a biased view not based on facts and reality.

 

[UKMKG]

Before this thread, I knew virtually nothing about Wells, mostly because I never really cared to know. However, after reading the comments, I did an internet search and read a number of articles that clearly say that your view is not accurate. I have no interest in debating the issue because it isn't that relevant to me other than just to understand this debate. But, according to numerous articles by academics, your view is simplistic and not really based on a full understanding of Orwell's beliefs. Thanks for replying but I honestly can't see your perspective as being anything other than a biased view not based on facts and reality.

Could you point more toward some of the academic articles you’re referring to? Interested in learning more as well as I reread the book.

 

[christophero]

Orwell was writing about the dangers of totalitarian government, and how government uses propaganda and technology to influence people. Also how the elite are able to control the poor in society. We studied it in high school. It was written in 1948, so he's likely talking about Russia and Germany and its abuses of liberty and what it could lead to, as WW 2 had just ended a few years prior.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Could you point more toward some of the academic articles you’re referring to? Interested in learning more as well as I reread the book.

All I did was type in George Orwell God in Google and a number of articles popped up. I just started skimming thru them to discover that Orwell was a complex human being with complex beliefs that didn't always seem consistent.

At any rate, one article that seemed interesting was this one: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/02/74119/

Let me know what you find in this. As I said, I am not looking for a debate but just an understanding. I don't really care what Orwell believed. It doesn't affect my life one way or the other. But, I just was curious if he were "deeply against Christianity" as one poster stated. I don't see that at all.

Almost every article I read said that Orwell was anti-Roman Catholic. Why say that if he were deeply against Christianity? Not one said he was "deeply against Christianity." And, several even said that he had some kind of affinity for the Anglican church and Christian morals.

 

[Verbal Kint II]

Surely you understand the moral chasm between deciding to vote with your pocketbook (boycotts), and cancel culture which would demand they shut down completely and or be shaken down for millions?
Btw, that "outraged" group is called their customer base. No one has any obligation to buy their products.

You think that’s not cancel culture? LOL at the hypocrisy. Yeah, you’re outraged because they sent a tik toker almost no one knew existed a beer. You were outraged because a few football players kneeled as a peaceful protest and wanted to boycott football too. Y’all were even outraged by the green M&M and Dr Suess for voluntarily removing racist imagery from older books. You are everything you complain about.

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

You think that’s not cancel culture? LOL at the hypocrisy. Yeah, you’re outraged because they sent a tik toker almost no one knew existed a beer. You were outraged because a few football players kneeled as a peaceful protest and wanted to boycott football too. Y’all were even outraged by the green M&M and Dr Suess for voluntarily removing racist imagery from older books. You are everything you complain about.

So you don't understand the distinction. Got it. Now you can resume your angry "y'all" tirade.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

Happy for you to share Orwell’s thoughts. Regardless, he was a disillusioned communist who knew the dangers of an authoritarian state that limits speech.

It has become crystal clear since the 40’s that atheistic totalitarianism is the seminal threat to freedom the world over with a body count in the millions since Orwell’s death.

That same secular authoritarianism is filling the pluralistic void in our country today and anyone with any sense can see the similarities with 1984 or more pointedly in Brave New World.

This might be the most ignorant statement ever written. Literally, statement by statement, everything you wrote was false. Just zero self awareness.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

So you don't understand the distinction. Got it. Now you can resume your angry "y'all" tirade.

You all really don’t have any self awareness. It’s amazing how you all refuse to apply your own logic toward yourself.

 

[roguemocha]

So Snoop the black man has carte blanche to be an idiot, but Huggy the white man has no such carte blanche to be an idiot? Got it, MO FO!

Comparing the two is asinine. Snoop works for Snoop. Huggins works for a federally sponsored, state employer. So yes the standards are different.

If Snoop says dumb stuff it only affects him. If Huggins says the same, it affects a multimillion dollar govt business.

If you can’t see the difference there, I don’t know what else to tell you.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

Numerous groups were lining up to start boycotts against CNN for the heinous crime of allowing Trump a forum to speak. Simply turning off their TV or changing channels wasn't enough. They were literally advocating boycotts against a presidential candidate's Right to free speech.

I don't think anyone has said Anheuser-Busch doesn't have the Right to put any picture on their product that they like. I think what millions have said that A-B as a company will have to pay a price for that action and implied support.
That's a huge difference.

Wait, so boycotting CNN is advocating boycotts against a Presidential candidates right to free speech but boycotting Bud Light for sending a beer to someone you don’t like isn’t boycotting their right to free speech and to give a can of beer to whomever they want? LOL, y’all can’t possibly believe the things you say.

 

[UKMKG]

This might be the most ignorant statement ever written. Literally, statement by statement, everything you wrote was false. Just zero self awareness.

I’m starting to think you were rooting for the party in 1984.

You know, you can’t just declare something that contradicts reality and expect everyone else to affirm your alternate reality too?

How was anything I said not 100% objective fact?

I know for folks like you that truth is relative and nothing is absolute but even for your type it’s hard to deny anything I said is anything but fact.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

Comparing the two is asinine. Snoop works for Snoop. Huggins works for a federally sponsored, state employer. So yes the standards are different.

If Snoop says dumb stuff it only affects him. If Huggins says the same, it affects a multimillion dollar govt business.

If you can’t see the difference there, I don’t know what else to tell you.

Dude, I got drawn into this too. Don’t do it to yourself. Put them on ignore and remember youre arguing with people defending racism. In short, they’re not worth arguing with. I wish I hadn’t engaged at all.

 

[roguemocha]

Dude, I got drawn into this too. Don’t do it to yourself. Put them on ignore and remember youre arguing with people defending racism. In short, they’re not worth arguing with. I wish I hadn’t engaged at all.

But that explanation should end the argument lol. That’s the whole point of the argument why one person can do something and another can’t.

Here’s another example. Papa John got fired from his own company that he started. Well how’s that possible you may think.

He went public with his company so people could buy stock and own part of it. So he gave his company up to a board to run the company that he was also on. He said something they didn’t like so they fired him from his own company. If you work for other people, you can get fired.

If he had never gone public with Papa John’s he could’ve said anything he wanted and maintained control of his company because at that point he just works for himself.

It can’t be more simple.