Kansas Crimson

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:37 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:22 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:06 pm

Did they “joke” that people who disagreed with them should be killed? I’m guessing not.

Once again incorrectly stating what was said. You're nothing if not consistently ignorant.

Shot? Is there a significant difference? You’re smarter than that.

And how do you feel about left-leaning people who claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was a call for violence? If you want someone - someone who has incited political violence before - to get the benefit of context and room for exaggeration there…why are we putting this professor’s head on a pike?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:43 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:37 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:22 pm
Once again incorrectly stating what was said. You're nothing if not consistently ignorant.

Shot? Is there a significant difference? You’re smarter than that.

And how do you feel about left-leaning people who claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was a call for violence? If you want someone - someone who has incited political violence before - to get the benefit of context and room for exaggeration there…why are we putting this professor’s head on a pike?

If you’re going to throw a fit about “bloodbath,” then you should expect that I’m going to at least say “Whoa!” to “jokes” about shooting people.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:43 pm And how do you feel about left-leaning people who claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was a call for violence? If you want someone - someone who has incited political violence before - to get the benefit of context and room for exaggeration there…why are we putting this professor’s head on a pike?

I think you are losing perspective and comparing apples and oranges here.

As president of the US you are commander in chief of the most deadly fighting force and weaponry on the planet. Idle threats and jokes about using your power are to be expected, it is not a serious job.

As a college professor you are molding young minds for a semester, an hour or two at a time every week. Any idle threat or poorly worded statement must be taken seriously. The opportunities and powers available to them to make their offhand musings come to fruition is way too serious to let it slide.

Off with his head!

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:43 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:43 pm And how do you feel about left-leaning people who claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was a call for violence? If you want someone - someone who has incited political violence before - to get the benefit of context and room for exaggeration there…why are we putting this professor’s head on a pike?

I think you are losing perspective and comparing apples and oranges here.

As president of the US you are commander in chief of the most deadly fighting force and weaponry on the planet. Idle threats and jokes about using your power are to be expected, it is not a serious job.

As a college professor you are molding young minds for a semester, an hour or two at a time every week. Any idle threat or poorly worded statement must be taken seriously. The opportunities and powers available to them to make their offhand musings come to fruition is way too serious to let it slide.

Off with his head!

Let me start with - I don't think I personally have made much of the "bloodbath" comment. While a person who has a record of proudly and unapologetically inciting political violence in the past should probably just avoid even feinting in that direction, context matters.

And besides, if you are a high-information anti-Trumper like me, you know that there are much less muddy things you can identify, as to the former President's continuing incitement of political violence.

All of which helps us arrive at the station here: this appears to be nothing more than Trumpers latching onto and amplifying something that at least superficially looks and feels like something Trump and his supporters have been criticized of doing.

Frankly I'm not mad at it - I think the discussion of what should and shouldn't be discussed in college classrooms is an interesting one.

Unfortunately there's always a dark side to these things, and the dark side is just how many people baselessly believe - because they want to, or are told to, or both - that it is Democrat rhetoric that is responsible for Trump being shot (at).

And, unfortunately, basic math says that if enough people believe that, then some number of them that is greater than zero will act on it.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:43 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:43 pm And how do you feel about left-leaning people who claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was a call for violence? If you want someone - someone who has incited political violence before - to get the benefit of context and room for exaggeration there…why are we putting this professor’s head on a pike?

I think you are losing perspective and comparing apples and oranges here.

As president of the US you are commander in chief of the most deadly fighting force and weaponry on the planet. Idle threats and jokes about using your power are to be expected, it is not a serious job.

As a college professor you are molding young minds for a semester, an hour or two at a time every week. Any idle threat or poorly worded statement must be taken seriously. The opportunities and powers available to them to make their offhand musings come to fruition is way too serious to let it slide.

Off with his head!

Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:58 pm Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

Exactly! This is how we KNOW trumpty plumpty is a STRONG MAN, he sounds completely irrational most of the time.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:05 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:58 pm Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

Exactly! This is how we KNOW trumpty plumpty is a STRONG MAN, he sounds completely irrational most of the time.

Trump is a serious tough guy.
He probably knows Karate, the ultimate decider of who is tough and who isn’t.

Or maybe Taekwondo, or Judo.
Definitely NOT jiu-jitsu…that shit is just 2 men dancing…helps them feel less like sissies

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:05 pm

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:05 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:58 pm Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

Exactly! This is how we KNOW trumpty plumpty is a STRONG MAN, he sounds completely irrational most of the time.

Trump is a serious tough guy.
He probably knows Karate, the ultimate decider of who is tough and who isn’t.

Or maybe Taekwondo, or Judo.
Definitely NOT jiu-jitsu…that shit is just 2 men dancing…helps them feel less like sissies

That JK quote isn't exactly a recommended psychological answer. Wouldn't want to make sense of anything, eh?

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:05 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:58 pm Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

Exactly! This is how we KNOW trumpty plumpty is a STRONG MAN, he sounds completely irrational most of the time.

So, tell me you don’t know what rationalization is without telling me you don’t know what rationalization is.

You can rationalize for the benefit of people who are conjecturing about an event they didn't witness. Or you can use it as a perjorative unreasoningly. Irrationally like you always do.

5 pages later and not a single person has come up with the professor's name and what was the full context of what he was saying. Of course. USA 2024 in a nutshell.

Let me help if anyone does care.

His name is Phil Lowcock (I knew him in the 80s) and he's been "placed on leave".

If you care to read about it....

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/pol ... 588027007/

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:55 pm 5 pages later and not a single person has come up with the professor's name and what was the full context of what he was saying. Of course. USA 2024 in a nutshell.

Let me help if anyone does care.

His name is Phil Lowcock (I knew him in the 80s) and he's been "placed on leave".

If you care to read about it....

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/pol ... 588027007/

I looked it up about four hours ago. Already scrubbed from KU's website. Hammered roundly on RatemyProfessor.com to boot. Not his best day, I'm certain.

Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:13 pm You can rationalize for the benefit of people who are conjecturing about an event they didn't witness. Or you can use it as a perjorative unreasoningly. Irrationally like you always do.

Gobbledygook as per usual, and without commas - also as per usual.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:37 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:22 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:06 pm

Did they “joke” that people who disagreed with them should be killed? I’m guessing not.

Once again incorrectly stating what was said. You're nothing if not consistently ignorant.

Shot? Is there a significant difference? You’re smarter than that.

"if they disagree with me" is not the same as "if they won't vote for someone just because they are a woman".

You just keep lying and lying.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:03 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:55 pm 5 pages later and not a single person has come up with the professor's name and what was the full context of what he was saying. Of course. USA 2024 in a nutshell.

Let me help if anyone does care.

His name is Phil Lowcock (I knew him in the 80s) and he's been "placed on leave".

If you care to read about it....

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/pol ... 588027007/

I looked it up about four hours ago. Already scrubbed from KU's website. Hammered roundly on RatemyProfessor.com to boot. Not his best day, I'm certain.

Yeah, all 9 of the negative ratings came yesterday and today.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:55 pm 5 pages later and not a single person has come up with the professor's name and what was the full context of what he was saying. Of course. USA 2024 in a nutshell.

Let me help if anyone does care.

His name is Phil Lowcock (I knew him in the 80s) and he's been "placed on leave".

If you care to read about it....

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/pol ... 588027007/

His name is irrelevant and we have already seen the video in full so I have the full context of what he said so the "USA 2024 in a nutshell" is probably unnecessary and rude.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:16 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:03 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:55 pm 5 pages later and not a single person has come up with the professor's name and what was the full context of what he was saying. Of course. USA 2024 in a nutshell.

Let me help if anyone does care.

His name is Phil Lowcock (I knew him in the 80s) and he's been "placed on leave".

If you care to read about it....

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/pol ... 588027007/

I looked it up about four hours ago. Already scrubbed from KU's website. Hammered roundly on RatemyProfessor.com to boot. Not his best day, I'm certain.

Yeah, all 9 of the negative ratings came yesterday and today.

Saw that.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:05 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:58 pm Rationalizing is a sign of fear and weakness.

Exactly! This is how we KNOW trumpty plumpty is a STRONG MAN, he sounds completely irrational most of the time.

You cannot be serious. Trump is as fake of a strong man as you can be.

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:14 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:37 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:22 pm
Once again incorrectly stating what was said. You're nothing if not consistently ignorant.

Shot? Is there a significant difference? You’re smarter than that.

"if they disagree with me" is not the same as "if they won't vote for someone just because they are a woman".

You just keep lying and lying.

Not sure that's relevant, given the circumstances. He is assuming that he is the sole arbiter of what a person's motive for choosing not to cast a vote for Giggles might be, which is a specious assumption to begin with. Not sure that's a foundation on which to build your argument, but you should proceed as you see fit, I suppose.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:22 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:14 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:37 pm

Shot? Is there a significant difference? You’re smarter than that.

"if they disagree with me" is not the same as "if they won't vote for someone just because they are a woman".

You just keep lying and lying.

Not sure that's relevant, given the circumstances. He is assuming that he is the sole arbiter of what a person's motive for choosing not to cast a vote for Giggles might be, which is a specious assumption to begin with. Not sure that's a foundation on which to build your argument, but you should proceed as you see fit, I suppose.

JFC, you're just making shit up now. He said nothing about "the only reason to vote for Trump or against Harris is because she is a woman". He didn't assume anything.

What he said: "There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don't think females are smart enough to be president." That is a 100% true statement. There are absolutely are going to be SOME males who vote against Harris solely because she is a woman.