Greg Stoda and whoever else.....

[FIN-IN-RI]

The key to deciphering and decoding the hidden and dangerous of logic of the post attacking Stoda is the following phrase used to defend and make us feel sorry for Junior Seau and Bill Parcells: “crucified for generic conversation."



Point 1:

“Crucified†is blasphemous in this context. Were they fired? No. Fined? Not to my knowledge. Has anyone attacked their family, their property, etc.? Not to my knowledge. Did Stoda call for their jobs? Nope.



By saying “crucified,†instead of “disagreed with†or “opposed†or “criticized,†the aim is to make us sense that something horribly unjust and serious happened to Seau and Parcells. That’s not accurate. Stoda objected to their comments. He judged them as humans in error. There is simply no need to feel like these men were subjected to any kind of humiliation or torture, because they were not. “Crucified†is supposed to make Stoda seem like an evil man out to get Seau and Parcells.



I like Junior Seau, but that doesn’t mean I don’t judge him. Pretending that Seau and Parcells are above or exempt from such judgments is a form of idolatry, and it is to be avoided.



Point 2:

“Generic conversation†is loaded. Why? Cause when one argues that the kind of things said by Seau and Parcells are “generic,†then one presupposes that there is something ordinary and “ok†with such “conversationâ€Â; that is, by using “generic†one not only _describes_ what was said as normal, but also _makes a claim_ about its acceptability in our society.



Indeed, calling the comments “generic conversation†reflects a way of thinking that Stoda insightfully attributes to “the wink-wink, nudge-nudge world of professional sport where the convenient excuse is that boys will be boys.â€Â



Instead of “unacceptable,†“possibly hurtful,†“reductive,†or “biased,†what “generic†implies is that saying such things is just “part of the way things are.†Maybe. But, of course, Stoda’s commentary was meant as a protest against precisely that problem.



Finally, we should notice that this combination of feeling sympathy for Seau and Parcells and allowing ourselves to have their comments normalized is dangerous. There’s no need to feel sorry for these guys, and if there conversation had been really so “generic,†then why was there such an uproar over them? Nor is there any need to worry that they were “unqualified to stand in front of a podium,†for this ignores the experience both men have – Parcells in particular – in speaking before the press.

And besides, in a democracy, being “qualified†to speak before the public should not b imagined only as a skill one acquires, but also as an unavoidable and inalienable right to free speech. We are all, in this sense, “qualified†to speak, because we all have this right. Such a right, however, carries with it the risk of having someone not like what you have to say.

blah, blah, and BLAH..screw your "judgements"..

 

[dolfanreal69]

God knows we should never say anything that hurts anyones feelings. No matter what you believe, or actually feel!You should put on a happy face, and never say what you mean and mean what you say. I know lets live in a pretend la la land. Where there is no dodge ball and noone ever loses a game. I mean it is just like the rest of the problems in this country, IMO! The punkification of an AMERICA continues! I mean some people actually think if they can make people not talk about things and say things that offend people,then that will eliminate the underlying problems. The fact is everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone has a right to voice that same opinion. If we choose to censure everything that people deem unpleasant we will soon be well on our way to an Orwellian way of life. No thanks, i stick to the truth, even if the truth hurts!