Author Topic: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?  (Read 58239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2015, 10:12:30 AM »

Offline manl_lui

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6100
  • Tommy Points: 369
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.

that starbucks "controversy" is stupid...people are getting so worked up over something so small, so irrelevant...even saying Merry Christmas at a Target is offensive now

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2015, 10:14:09 AM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.

I don't really get this. You hold more of a moderate stance than most that would agree with you, but I still don't understand the last thing you said. It's not like by "removing Christmas" they're saying "screw Christmas." In this hypothetical they're not even replacing Christmas with another non-Christian holiday. They're remaining neutral. How is that justifiable, unless you believe Christianity is the superior and ultimate religion (not saying you do)? Seems to be a case of getting angry over what was not said, rather than getting angry over what was said or done.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2015, 10:40:01 AM »

Offline KeepRondo

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5161
  • Tommy Points: 215
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.

I don't really get this. You hold more of a moderate stance than most that would agree with you, but I still don't understand the last thing you said. It's not like by "removing Christmas" they're saying "screw Christmas." In this hypothetical they're not even replacing Christmas with another non-Christian holiday. They're remaining neutral. How is that justifiable, unless you believe Christianity is the superior and ultimate religion (not saying you do)? Seems to be a case of getting angry over what was not said, rather than getting angry over what was said or done.
Whatever you said went right over my head.

The only thing of importance that I said was, I would object if a local franchise was forced to remove Christmas references. I would probably also object if they were forced to remove holiday references for other religions also.

I think it's very unfair to imply I was getting angry and taking a position that Christians are superior. But then again I'm not sure I correctly understood your reply so I apologize if that wasn't your intention.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2015, 10:42:17 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16321
  • Tommy Points: 1155
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.
You realize Starbucks is still actively selling their Christmas blend coffee, right? And that the "holiday cheer" on the cups has been pretty nondescript for years (there have been snowmen, nutcrackers, kids in sleighs, and just stylized holiday elements). Not to mention that they didn't even have holiday cups until 1997, I'm guessing there was no Christmas before that.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 10:47:27 AM by kozlodoev »
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2015, 10:53:11 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23298
  • Tommy Points: 986
  • What a Pub Should Be
My biggest complaint is that Starbucks sells their Thanksgiving blend, by far their best blend (won't argue this) for about a two week window before going straight to their Christmas blend.

Walking into Starbucks this week & they're already in full holiday mode. It's Nov 11th.   I don't want your [dang] Christmas blend yet! 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #50 on: November 11, 2015, 10:56:06 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16321
  • Tommy Points: 1155
My biggest complaint is that Starbucks sells their Thanksgiving blend, by far their best blend (won't argue this) for about a two week window before going straight to their Christmas blend.

Walking into Starbucks this week & they're already in full holiday mode. It's Nov 11th.   I don't want your [dang] Christmas blend yet!
My biggest complaint is that Starbucks (like much other US coffee roasters) appear to have no idea how to roast coffee. Some of that bitter crap they pass for espresso is really hard to stomach.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #51 on: November 11, 2015, 11:36:19 AM »

Offline Evantime34

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11664
  • Tommy Points: 739
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
I am shocked that people care so much about Starbucks not having Merry Christmas on their cups. It seems that this is a case of Starbucks going out of their way to be too politically correct. Do people of other religions really care if it says Merry Christmas on their starbucks cup? I doubt it.

My only complaint is that we are discussing Christmas celebrations before Thanksgiving. I think it should be a law that no Christmas/holiday advertisements should be made until after Thanksgiving.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #52 on: November 11, 2015, 11:48:43 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17719
  • Tommy Points: 2374
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I am shocked that people care so much about Starbucks not having Merry Christmas on their cups. It seems that this is a case of Starbucks going out of their way to be too politically correct. Do people of other religions really care if it says Merry Christmas on their starbucks cup? I doubt it.

The thing is, I don't think they've EVER had "Merry Christmas" on their cups.  It's all just generic holiday/winter imagery, and they went with plain red this year. 

It's also weird to talk about a private business being "too politically correct" when A.  They're just trying to be as inclusive as possible because they are for-profit and would like to maximize those profits by selling coffee to as many people as possible, and B. There's only one party that's demanding the other side change their language to avoid offending them, and it's not Starbucks or non-Christians.


My only complaint is that we are discussing Christmas celebrations before Thanksgiving. I think it should be a law that no Christmas/holiday advertisements should be made until after Thanksgiving.

I'm annoyed by it too, but ironically a law like this would be a lot closer to a "war on free speech" than anything cited in the thread so far.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #53 on: November 11, 2015, 11:50:42 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23298
  • Tommy Points: 986
  • What a Pub Should Be
I am shocked that people care so much about Starbucks not having Merry Christmas on their cups. It seems that this is a case of Starbucks going out of their way to be too politically correct. Do people of other religions really care if it says Merry Christmas on their starbucks cup? I doubt it.

The thing is, I don't think they've EVER had "Merry Christmas" on their cups.  It's all just generic holiday/winter imagery, and they went with plain red this year. 

It's also weird to talk about a private business being "too politically correct" when A.  They're just trying to be as inclusive as possible because they are for-profit and would like to maximize those profits by selling coffee to as many people as possible, and B. There's only one party that's demanding the other side change their language to avoid offending them, and it's not Starbucks or non-Christians.

Pretty much. 



2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #54 on: November 11, 2015, 11:52:43 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17719
  • Tommy Points: 2374
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I'll amend that a little to specify that it's not "Christians" as a group demanding those changes, it's just a very vocal minority.  Most of the Christians I know think this is incredibly petty and stupid, and that seems to be a typical reaction nation-wide.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #55 on: November 11, 2015, 12:01:11 PM »

Offline mef730

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2625
  • Tommy Points: 447
My only complaint is that we are discussing Christmas celebrations before Thanksgiving. I think it should be a law that no Christmas/holiday advertisements should be made until after Thanksgiving.

While I am 100% in favor of free speech and free expression, this might be a censorship cause that I could back. Seriously, people, it's just tacky.

Mike
Tickets for the 2017-18 season for sale at face value! Thread here: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=93612.0

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #56 on: November 11, 2015, 12:12:27 PM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.

I don't really get this. You hold more of a moderate stance than most that would agree with you, but I still don't understand the last thing you said. It's not like by "removing Christmas" they're saying "screw Christmas." In this hypothetical they're not even replacing Christmas with another non-Christian holiday. They're remaining neutral. How is that justifiable, unless you believe Christianity is the superior and ultimate religion (not saying you do)? Seems to be a case of getting angry over what was not said, rather than getting angry over what was said or done.
Whatever you said went right over my head.

The only thing of importance that I said was, I would object if a local franchise was forced to remove Christmas references. I would probably also object if they were forced to remove holiday references for other religions also.

I think it's very unfair to imply I was getting angry and taking a position that Christians are superior. But then again I'm not sure I correctly understood your reply so I apologize if that wasn't your intention.

I was trying to understand how your last sentiment fit with your otherwise pretty moderate post. I didn't read your post carefully enough to see that you would be upset if Starbucks faced social or business pressure to tone down the Christmas theme. I can understand why that would rub you the wrong way.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #57 on: November 11, 2015, 12:20:41 PM »

Offline KeepRondo

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5161
  • Tommy Points: 215
The Starbucks thing has to be one of the most asinine things I've read in a while.  People are really getting worked up about a [dang] coffee cup?  My god.  Who gives a [dang].

The Mizzou incident with the journalist getting threatened by the professor was troubling.  She looks absolutely awful there.  Thought her apology yesterday was pretty empty.  If that thing wasn't caught on tape, she wouldn't have been showing any remorse.
I feel disappointed that they opted to remove the holiday cheer from their cups, but it's their decision to. The only way I could ever see this as an issue is if a franchise owner was told specifically by Starbucks to remove references to Christmas from their stores. But then again they are representing the brand so it would be hard to back that one also, but I probably would object in that situation.
You realize Starbucks is still actively selling their Christmas blend coffee, right? And that the "holiday cheer" on the cups has been pretty nondescript for years (there have been snowmen, nutcrackers, kids in sleighs, and just stylized holiday elements). Not to mention that they didn't even have holiday cups until 1997, I'm guessing there was no Christmas before that.
I didn't. I haven't been to a Starbucks in sometime but if one was closer, I wouldn't be offended by the red cups. I think you can be disappointed without being offended.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2015, 12:54:37 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16489
  • Tommy Points: 1445
My biggest complaint is that Starbucks sells their Thanksgiving blend, by far their best blend (won't argue this) for about a two week window before going straight to their Christmas blend.

Walking into Starbucks this week & they're already in full holiday mode. It's Nov 11th.   I don't want your [dang] Christmas blend yet!

You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #59 on: November 11, 2015, 01:05:19 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23234
  • Tommy Points: 2849


And the letter at Yale can't really just be boiled down to "look away". Rather, it was a call for students rather than college administrators to decide for themselves what they deemed as appropriate, and it went even further to encourage dialogue with those individuals who "offended" them. So it was a call for students to govern themselves rather than relying on college administrators, and boiling it down to "look away" doesn't do the letter justice.

I think there are situations where encouraging students to engage in a dialogue, instead of flatly banning conduct that could be considered offensive, could be a useful learning opportunity.

On the other hand, I don't think there's much to be gained by asking students, especially minority students who are already doing their best just to fit in at a historically white school, to attempt to "engage in a dialogue" with fellow students who are just being jerks (for lack of a more appropriate term I can't use on these forums). 

Going out in black face on Halloween is just being a jerk.  I don't think that needs to be protected.  There's no dialogue there.  It's just daring somebody to punch you in the face, or making somebody feel bad about the fact that they're not in a position to punch you in the face.


Point being, there's nuance here.  The administration of a school, like Yale, could take a hard-line stance against flagrantly offensive costumes without suspending any student who wears something that offends somebody else.  As always, the solutions to problems don't need to be all or nothing.

See, I disagree with this. Having some libertarian-leanings toward me, I always err on the side of freedom. College and university campuses are supposed to be the pinnacle of free exchange of ideas and speech, and being the supposed future leaders of tomorrow, I think it's important to have students rely on dialogue and cooperation to fix their issues, especially ones that are as questionable in nature as the "cultural appropriation" argument against Halloween.

Also, I think your perception on the matter is being skewed by the narrative of black face. I didn't see any mention of anyone utilizing "blackface" or anything like that; rather, I think they were more talking about dressing up like Native Americans, Eskimos, etc. I could see where blackface is offensive, but I truly think the arguments were more focused on the generalized attire of certain populations, i.e. Native Americans, Eskimos, etc.

Besides, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has already ruined blackface for everybody when Mac used blackface to play Murtaugh in their Lethal Weapon remakes lol
Quote from:  Ron Swanson
It's never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples.