DavidsonCats.com

cat44 wrote:One of Don Miguel Ruiz's Four Agreements is "Don't take anything personally". In this Agreement he states that (1) nothing others do is because of you; (2) what others do and say is a projection of their own reality and dreams; (3) when you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering. In other words, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. You may or may not believe this, but I certainly do. When one has principles which they stick by, they will not be swayed or hurt by whatever someone else says about them. Alternatively, those who lack principles, or act that way may be offended and hurt by the jabs of others. Ergo, I doubt Stan was hurt by the personal attacks on him. And I found Wildcat92's inability (with which he meant to disparage my lack of discernment) to explain the difference "between politics and a request that someone acknowledge the basic dignity and humanity of other people, particularly women", to me, laughable.

Great, so now I can go around calling everyone an "assh----" and when they get upset know that they are further an unprincipled "assh----".

Madelastcut- please re-read my post and substitute "likelihood" for "threat". It means the same thing and is hardly an "I'm going to hurt you" kind of threat.

In law the "reasonable man" standard is considered an objective standard even though every application is somewhat subjective. A "reasonable man", reading your post after reading mind would likely respond: "WTF? He's not threatening anybody."

What you are basically saying is that nobody should exercise their own freedom of speech to call out someone else for their statements. Since you just did that to me, I know that's not what you really mean.

Well now Hatted Cat: You walk back your prior post immediately, asserting that it wasn't intended to constitute a "I'm going to hurt you threat".

Yet, as another recent post "accurately" pointed out - benign intentions are entirely irrelevant when the reader of a statement feels subjectively offended by a "joke" or idiom that is deemed too close to bullying or is judged to be otherwise demeaning or gender belittling by that reader.

I will attest right now that I am deeply hurt and offended by your accusations - not meant to be jocular or generalized about unidentified posters on this Board - instead personally directed at me that you have determined me to be, e.g. "stupid", "insensitive""boorish" "demeaning" and otherwise worthy of disrespect and repudiation not merely by yourself but by the vast majority of discerning folks who frequent this august venue.

Now, that Sir or madam is what I call Hate Speech. So spare me your platitudes about free speech allowing for the expression of contrary views. I am a First Amendment absolutist, but what discourse in the marketplace of ideas which is universally deemed positive and constructive is the back and forth of opposing views on the substance of the idea under consideration. What Stan got here was a personal denunciation of his character and mental health. That's what offensive retorts I called out.

I tire of your antics. Aloha.

So now its "antics" that you find offensive. My own perception is that we were having a serious and important conversation, which your mis-characterization of, I find to be, the apparently final, stupid insult.

To be safe ... just leave liberal icons out of any discussion about sex, lies, and corruption. Then there will be rare "call outs" from our "sensitive" and "discerning" members.

It's mostly about politics not offensive words or phrases. This board has had plenty of potentially offensive sexual innuendo and more over the years with no virtually comment from the sensitive and discerning.

It would be OK if no one looked innuendo.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:To be safe ... just leave liberal icons out of any discussion about sex, lies, and corruption. Then there will be rare "call outs" from our "sensitive" and "discerning" members.

It's mostly about politics not offensive words or phrases. This board has had plenty of potentially offensive sexual innuendo and more over the years with no virtually comment from the sensitive and discerning.

I thought clinton was a good president, but I also thought he was fairly moderate one- especially when working with the republican congress. As for being a lying womanizer- I tend to separate that from his presidency. That might be political bias, but I'd like to think I could do the same for a rebublican. I don't *think* I would call Clinton a mysogonist based on those things but I don't know the distinction between misogynist and womanizer very well. Bernie sanders would most certainly be an icon. Obama tried to be an icon but I think we must assert he ultimately failed. Not sure about Hillary.

As for raising the subject of mysogeny, I had a hall of fame post (it's self-nomination, right!?) 3 or so years ago about the tenor of some of our Diane Lane posts. I was eloquently refuted by a former Davidson cheerleader, amongst others, however I never admitted defeat, and am still plotting a counter-attack when the moment is right.

"They was" #marquette

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tigers-sto ... -golf.html

Stop it. There is no return to glory for Tiger. He's done.

MadelastCut wrote:Well now Hatted Cat: You walk back your prior post immediately, asserting that it wasn't intended to constitute a "I'm going to hurt you threat".

Yet, as another recent post "accurately" pointed out - benign intentions are entirely irrelevant when the reader of a statement feels subjectively offended by a "joke" or idiom that is deemed too close to bullying or is judged to be otherwise demeaning or gender belittling by that reader.

I will attest right now that I am deeply hurt and offended by your accusations - not meant to be jocular or generalized about unidentified posters on this Board - instead personally directed at me that you have determined me to be, e.g. "stupid", "insensitive""boorish" "demeaning" and otherwise worthy of disrespect and repudiation not merely by yourself but by the vast majority of discerning folks who frequent this august venue.

Now, that Sir or madam is what I call Hate Speech. So spare me your platitudes about free speech allowing for the expression of contrary views. I am a First Amendment absolutist, but what discourse in the marketplace of ideas which is universally deemed positive and constructive is the back and forth of opposing views on the substance of the idea under consideration. What Stan got here was a personal denunciation of his character and mental health. That's what offensive retorts I called out.

I can always tell when it's summertime: there's nothing to really talk about regarding the current team; daily temperatures along the eastern seaboard are much the same as Mumbai before the monsoon; folks are feeling testy; and we are all frustrated with staying indoors in an effort to stave off heatstroke. Since there are several prickly writers who have taken offense at the utterance of First Amendment-protected speech and have thereby deemed themselves insulted by one another, contrary to the normally equable temperament of our band of brothers, should we call each other out and demand satisfaction if no apologies are forthcoming? I suggest flintlock pistols or swords drawn at dawn in the parking lot of the Brickhouse. Or maybe a melee' like in the Meereen slave-pits from Game of Thrones?

In conclusion, I propose a thread hijacking: Speaking of Game of Thrones, how about Lena Headey baring all that flesh in this season's finale? Could she be making a play for replacing Diane Lane among the more salacious frequenters of this board? How about a new D-Cats award, named after Cersei, to be given to the player who leaves it all out there on the court?

Sorry raptorcat.

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/G ... 72464.html

Ms. Headey has a no-frontal nudity policy and also was pregnant during the shoot.

That was some seriously impressive CGI work, though, and her acting in the closeups was fantastic.

Well, dadgum. I initially thought there actress had gotten more, er, buxom, when compared to her previous, um, body of work. Now I know why. I guess I should start employing a body double for some of my more controversial appearances, too. So don't be surprised when Speedo Guy is sitting in my seat next season.

Okay. So we'd have to name the award the "Pseudo Cersei."

For whatever it's worth, I have not been personally offended by the words written on these pages, nor do I believe I have a right to not be offended. But I am aware that speech can be hurtful, and that if we want to represent our mutually beloved DU well in the public sphere, we'd do well to avoid potentially hurtful speech wherever possible.

I am some perspective on gender equality. I am a young(ish) female in academia. I have been passed over for funding in favor of male students. I have received lower wages then male colleagues. I have had my abilities doubted. I have been the butt of sex jokes. I have received unwanted cat calls. I have been groped in public. I have been encouraged to hide a pregnancy. I have had job interview requests retracted when I asked to reschedule due to imminent childbirth. I have been dismissed as "emotionally unstable" because I dared point out glaring gender discrimination at work. I've been forced to include a line item for a male escort in grant proposals for field research. I have been blamed for having been a victim of assault. I have feared for my life at the hands of unknown men. I have been told I'm less capable than men so often that, at one point, I actually believed it.

I'm not a raging feminist. I'm just a typical educated female (and a die-hard Cats fan) with typical life experiences. All I ask is that we all work toward making the typical experience of women a little bit better. And that starts with the way we speak, especially in public.

I know many of you won't buy any of this. You'll write me off as a panty buncher, a PC police, a self-annointed expert on misogyny. You'll feel accused and get indignant, and you might even try to offend me to make yourself feel better. You might even do it here on this board. The First Amendment gives you the right to do that. It also gives me the right to ask you not to. To ask to you stop and reflect on what it's like to be a woman. To be your wife/sister/daughter. To be me.

How is it okay for people who don't even know Stan to call him a misogynist?