The Democrat Utopia

knapplc said:
Greenwald's rant seems totally out of left field so I figured I'd better get a different source on whatever's going on with Eric Clapton.

As it turns out, whatever Greenwald is focusing on, it's not the point. Deflect, distract, demur. Weird tactic from a journalist, no?


Eric Clapton continues vaccine denial, donates $1,360 to anti-vax band




Eric Clapton thinks he can change the world — or at least the world’s perception of COVID-19 vaccines.

The 76-year-old rocker — who has repeatedly railed against the vaccines and associated mandates in recent months — has now helped bankroll an anti-vax band, Rolling Stone reported.

According to the publication, Clapton donated £1,000 (USD $1,360) to British rockers Jam For Freedom through a GoFundMe set up to help pay for legal fees they acquired after “breaching COVID regulations” at a gig.

Jam For Freedom has been playing shows across the UK in recent months, blasting the COVID shots in their songs. One of their tracks features the lyric: “You can stick your poison vaccine up your arse.”
Click to expand...


Thanks, you've made Greenwald's point. 

The "problem" is Clapton's anti-vax stance evidently. So...why did Rolling Stone talk about 40 year old allegations of racism to discredit him...when the issue is vaccines?

 
DevoHusker said:
Thanks, you've made Greenwald's point. 

The "problem" is Clapton's anti-vax stance evidently. So...why did Rolling Stone talk about 40 year old allegations of racism to discredit him...when the issue is vaccines?
Click to expand...


No, I've shown Greenwald's point is pointless.

Trying to make Rolling Stone the issue is a deflection.

Eric Clapton is an anti-vaxxer and is being called out for it (rightly).  Who in their right mind is defending that?

 
knapplc said:
Greenwald's rant seems totally out of left field so I figured I'd better get a different source on whatever's going on with Eric Clapton.

As it turns out, whatever Greenwald is focusing on, it's not the point. Deflect, distract, demur. Weird tactic from a journalist, no?


Eric Clapton continues vaccine denial, donates $1,360 to anti-vax band




Eric Clapton thinks he can change the world — or at least the world’s perception of COVID-19 vaccines.

The 76-year-old rocker — who has repeatedly railed against the vaccines and associated mandates in recent months — has now helped bankroll an anti-vax band, Rolling Stone reported.

According to the publication, Clapton donated £1,000 (USD $1,360) to British rockers Jam For Freedom through a GoFundMe set up to help pay for legal fees they acquired after “breaching COVID regulations” at a gig.

Jam For Freedom has been playing shows across the UK in recent months, blasting the COVID shots in their songs. One of their tracks features the lyric: “You can stick your poison vaccine up your arse.”
Click to expand...
Covid,  you've got me on my knees
Covid, I'm begging, darling please
Covid, darling won't you ease my worried mind

 
knapplc said:
No, I've shown Greenwald's point is pointless.

Trying to make Rolling Stone the issue is a deflection.

Eric Clapton is an anti-vaxxer and is being called out for it (rightly).  Who in their right mind is defending that?
Click to expand...


Tell me you didn't read the Rolling Stone link without saying you didn't read the Rolling Stone link. 

 
What Glenn Greenwald has a huge issue with - the libruls are canceling Eric Clapton!!!!!!!!!!!

What Glenn Greenwald has no issue with - Eric Clapton is an anti-vaxxer and he's bankrolling other anti-vaxx morons to the detriment of society.

One of these actions can get people killed. The other is a culture war distraction.

Focus a bit.

 
Ulty said:
What "new policies"? You have yet to identify an actual company/university policy that you or her or her husband finds questionable. Earlier you said that she was one of your employees, and now you say that she was frustrated with "new company policies," so it would stand to reason if you are her manager that you would know what policies she might be talking about. And obviously it seems like you have concerns about these mysterious policies too. 

Let's make it easier: if you can't identify your own company policy that is causing so much consternation, then let's identify any policy that any reputable company, corporation, or university has (public universities typically post all of their policies online), that you feel is representative of cancel culture or is too woke. Then we can discuss what is unreasonable about these policies and how they can be changed. Is that fair?

Language evolves, and sometimes it evolves rather quickly. Let's use psychiatric and disability language for example. Back in the day, doctors and psychologists used words like "idiot" and "imbecile" as actual medical terms. I think these words were even used in early versions of the DSM Manual (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me). Later, these words became commonly used as pejorative insults, so the language changed. For many years, the R-word was used instead. It became used in a derogatory way as well. So language evolved again, and we don't use the R-word anymore (unless you are intentionally being an a$$hole). 

Now think about the word "queer." That word has been used as a derogatory term for a hell of a long time, but has largely been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community (that's what the Q stands for) as an acceptable term, but the context regarding how the word is used still matters. Not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community likes that word, and it can still be triggering to some. And it can still be used inappropriately. 

With pronouns, the vernacular has changed really quickly, and it is hard to keep up. So when you mention "Pronouns or phrases they used for decades," let's talk about "they" as an example. You and I likely grew up using "they" as nothing more than a plural pronoun and not as someone's personal identity. It still feels weird to use "they" as a singular pronoun instead of "he or she." It doesn't sound like the proper English that we learned. But times have changed. Is there a reason to stubbornly dig your heels in and refuse to use "they" if that is what someone prefers? What harm does it do to you to learn to use a word a little bit differently? What harm does it do to the older man in your example to refer to professional women as "women" instead of "girls?" It does no harm at all to make that change, but using respectful language or using someone's preferred name or pronouns can show that you are making an effort at respecting them. 

Let's think critically about this a little bit further. In the business world, a "reprimand" is typically a disciplinary action, right? Does a union boss have the authority to discipline? Isn't the job of a union leader to look out for the fairness and just treatment of their fellow union members? Further, can you think of any real policy that would lead to someone being disciplined for mistakenly calling someone "girls"? Is it more likely that this was an educational conversation with the older gentleman? Now, if you said something that unintentionally offended someone else, wouldn't you want to know about it? 

What happens when that same older man makes a mistake in any other aspect of his job? Does he learn and improve, or does he just stop doing his job? Look, when we make mistakes (and we all make mistakes), we need to acknowledge the mistake, suck it up, and do better next time. That's not too much to ask.

Again, let's think critically about this situation. There is a huge difference between a reprimand, and "huge trouble," versus a conversation with the Dean or more training. Hell, we all need more training, that is not a bad thing. And a conversation with the Dean is not a disciplinary action. Call it conjecture or call it critical thinking, but what do you think actually happened in this situation? Think about what is reasonable. Is this really what "cancel culture" is?
Click to expand...
Too many questions to read and answer on my phone. I have not talk with her about her husband's situation again to get more details. I most likely will not unless she brings it up again. What did you think about professor Bright Sheng's firing?

 
nic said:
Too many questions to read and answer on my phone. I have not talk with her about her husband's situation again to get more details. I most likely will not unless she brings it up again. What did you think about professor Bright Sheng's firing?
Click to expand...
I hope you have time to take a look at my questions a little later. I've asked about specific policy concerns a couple of times now. Don't rush on my account, but I am genuinely interested in your response.

Bright Sheng at Michigan is an interesting case, but he wasn't fired. According to this article, https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/10/11/professor-not-teaching-after-blackface-‘othello’-showing:

David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance, referred a request for comment to a university spokesperson. That spokesperson, Kim Broekhuizen, said via email that it’s “important to note that Prof. Bright Sheng was not removed from teaching his seminar class this fall. The decision to have Prof. Sheng step away from that class was a decision that he and Dean Gier made together. They agreed to that approach and Dean Gier notified students in the class.”
Click to expand...


It looks like a move they made to save face and further public embarrassment. If I had to guess, there will probably not be any actual discipline in the case either. It's all PR (my opinion). If he were to be disciplined or fired for this, I would be stunned if such a decision would hold up to a legal challenge in the conservative 6th Circuit. The communication was not handled well, particularly the wording in the professor's apology. It was one of those "I'm sorry that you were offended" as opposed to simply saying "sorry" and acknowledging the mistake. 

Fun fact, Nebraska's former Title IX Coordinator is now at Michigan in a VP role, she oversees their Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX office. So there is only a couple of degrees of separation between UNL and the Bright Sheng case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DevoHusker said:
Tell me you didn't read the Rolling Stone link without saying you didn't read the Rolling Stone link. 
Click to expand...
Some people think that bringing up 40 yr old allegations is a way of trying shame an anti-Covid vaccine person.  As if those two things are actually the same :dunno    But whatever pretzel someone needs to twist themselves into in order to argue with Glenn Greenwalt. 

 
knapplc said:
Eric Clapton is an anti-vaxxer and is being called out for it (rightly).  
Click to expand...




Eric Clapton also made racist statements 40 years ago that he's owned and reckoned with and is being called out for it (wrongly).

Deflection or not, that's a very transparently un-journalistic approach from Rolling Stone, akin to something like, "Celebrity X thinks 9/11 was an inside job, and also in 1971 thought homosexuality was a sin"

 
Lorewarn said:
Eric Clapton also made racist statements 40 years ago that he's owned and reckoned with and is being called out for it (wrongly).

Deflection or not, that's a very transparently un-journalistic approach from Rolling Stone, akin to something like, "Celebrity X thinks 9/11 was an inside job, and also in 1971 thought homosexuality was a sin"
Click to expand...


Right.

But that's not the lede. The lede was (purposefully) buried to bury the anti-vaxx actual factual story.

 
This is the case that people have been citing as an example of domestic parent terrorism against school boards.  For all you parents out there, tell me you wouldn’t have acted in the same manner or in my case probably worse if you were in his shoes.   Yet Merritt Garland cited this case.


 
knapplc said:
What Glenn Greenwald has a huge issue with - the libruls are canceling Eric Clapton!!!!!!!!!!!

What Glenn Greenwald has no issue with - Eric Clapton is an anti-vaxxer and he's bankrolling other anti-vaxx morons to the detriment of society.

One of these actions can get people killed. The other is a culture war distraction.

Focus a bit.
Click to expand...


Not that it's particularly important, but Greenwald is a holier-than-thou bad-faith asshat, and has been for some time now.

 
Back
Top