It seems even so-called "conservatives" need safe spaces too....

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,244
32,396
1,743
oklahoma city
#41
I kind of avoid taking much of a stand on the political board as much lately because I seem to be making enemies, which I don't like to do. Honestly, I dropped the thing in here about the drag queen children's hour because I thought it might be a little common ground that we would all say " yeah that's getting a little weird". I was wrong. Live and learn.

As far as the religion, if PBS tried to have the Christian children's hour and someone from the church talked about Noah's Ark or Daniel in the Lion's den I think we both know that it wouldn't last as long as the drag queen's hips going swish, swish, swish.
LOL, another perfect example of the hyperbole and false persecution you claim while ignoring the real stuff. Despite the fact that we all grew up with hours and hours of child focused religious programming on over the air TV every Sunday morning, you pick the ONE channel that didn’t do it to feed your delusion.

And, i don’t know what you mean by not picking much of a stand on the political boards, your stand on these issues comes through loud and clear.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,770
15,016
1,743
#42
LOL, another perfect example of the hyperbole and false persecution you claim while ignoring the real stuff. Despite the fact that we all grew up with hours and hours of child focused religious programming on over the air TV every Sunday morning, you pick the ONE channel that didn’t do it to feed your delusion.

And, i don’t know what you mean by not picking much of a stand on the political boards, your stand on these issues comes through loud and clear.
I picked the one channel the drag queen kids show was on because that's what we were discussing.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,244
32,396
1,743
oklahoma city
#43
I picked the one channel the drag queen kids show was on because that's what we were discussing.
I bet the drag queen wouldn’t last more than a single “amen” on the other programming. So what does that prove? It is simply more of you feigning persecution where it doesn’t exist while you claim real persecution is minor.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,770
15,016
1,743
#44
I bet the drag queen wouldn’t last more than a single “amen” on the other programming. So what does that prove? It is simply more of you feigning persecution where it doesn’t exist while you claim real persecution is minor.
I bet that drag queen grew up in a house that had a few too many amens shoved down his throat, but that's another issue.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,303
4,357
1,743
#45
After reading the article again, some things aren't clear.
Did he use the universities mail system for this and was the listserv hosted on campus? Would this make any difference?

The federalist society filed the complaint March 27th, because they were getting harassed because people thought this was real, why did it take the University so long to initiate the investigation?

I don't see anywhere on here where it says the federalist society wanted his diploma revoked or him not being allowed to graduate. It appears that that is a process of Stanford University when they investigate so close to graduation. So why is everybody saying that the Federalist society are the ones that asked for it?
And that goes back to why didn't the university investigate sooner instead of waiting until the federalist society had to prod them to investigate? Shouldn't they investigate all complaints?

My opinion is okay satire, who cares. But if he presented it as if it was fact and it caused harm to them in regards to loss of speakers and harassment by people, then there needs to be some way that he can be held accountable for it. But there's no way to tell because the actual message he sent to the listserv is not shown.
I also believe that the university made this worse than it had to be by dragging their heels on starting the investigation. I don't think the federalist society was wanting to cancel him, they simply wanted some form of justice to be attempted in the fact that he was trying to represent that flyer as real and cause harm to their organization.
I mean we don't honestly know if he meant it as satire or not.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Lots of assumptions and benefit given in one direction, but I posted the email in the 2nd post on this thread.
The problem is it was too believable. Ken Paxton’s bio is spot-on.
View attachment 90510
View attachment 90511
All I did was ask questions in my first part. And the second I stated my opinion on light of those questions.

One side or the other doesn't matter, I believe the point of asking the questions is because there's not enough information.

You provided the email flyer, but nothing to show whether he said anything on the listserv about it being satire, or whether he used university mail or servers to do this through. Both of which seem relevant in regards to the investigation.

Are you able to answer any of my other questions or do they not seem valid to you?
In light of those questions, do you think it wrong to accuse the society members of attempting cancel culture without knowing those answers?
I mean, the university was not gonna give him the diploma per their own policy, but only temporary, and not because of the society, nothing says the society called for it.



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,126
571
1,743
#47
All I did was ask questions in my first part. And the second I stated my opinion on light of those questions.

One side or the other doesn't matter, I believe the point of asking the questions is because there's not enough information.

You provided the email flyer, but nothing to show whether he said anything on the listserv about it being satire, or whether he used university mail or servers to do this through. Both of which seem relevant in regards to the investigation.

Are you able to answer any of my other questions or do they not seem valid to you?
In light of those questions, do you think it wrong to accuse the society members of attempting cancel culture without knowing those answers?
I mean, the university was not gonna give him the diploma per their own policy, but only temporary, and not because of the society, nothing says the society called for it.



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Anyone at Stanford Law incapable of picking up that it was satire should have their own graduation hold while they're investigated to see what fraud they committed to get admitted.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,785
2,528
1,743
46
DFW
#48
All I did was ask questions in my first part. And the second I stated my opinion on light of those questions.

One side or the other doesn't matter, I believe the point of asking the questions is because there's not enough information.

You provided the email flyer, but nothing to show whether he said anything on the listserv about it being satire, or whether he used university mail or servers to do this through. Both of which seem relevant in regards to the investigation.

Are you able to answer any of my other questions or do they not seem valid to you?
In light of those questions, do you think it wrong to accuse the society members of attempting cancel culture without knowing those answers?
I mean, the university was not gonna give him the diploma per their own policy, but only temporary, and not because of the society, nothing says the society called for it.
You know exactly what you’re doing. It is exactly what I stated. You’re giving all of the benefit of doubt to the Federalist Society. It’s your M.O. If it were truly intellectual curiosity and a search for the truth, it wouldn’t always be to the benefit of the conservatives’ / Republicans’ side of the argument.

Here’s the ListServ message. It was a pretty simple Google search for those intellectually curious:
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploa...d-University-June-1-2021_Redacted.pdf#page=12

Wallace’s email, sent under the subject line “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection,” purported to invite students to attend an event held on January 6—nineteen days earlier. It prominently featured a photo of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaking at then- President Trump’s January 6 “Save America Rally,” which preceded the violence at the U.S. Capitol,5 and a photo of Sen. Josh Hawley raising his fist in support of demonstrators before he entered the Capitol that day.6 The email informed recipients that “[r]iot information will be emailed the morning of” the past event, adding:

“Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy.”
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,395
3,501
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#51
Llcoolw sees it this way. Cancel culture is mob mentality amplified by media technology. Causing irrational fear in those being exposed while simultaneously giving deep satisfaction to the exposer.

@CowboyJD was pretty close in the idea of:
“In other words, open competition in the marketplace of ideas.” That marketplace used to be reserved for “talking heads” and those who owned the air waves. Then it shifted. Radio became the marketplace for the old. Soon, radios were in cars. And so were young people. Then came the DJs.

However, there were rare marketplaces that covered coast to coast. The ones that were, were also deeply scripted.

Now anything and everything are not only coast to coast but west to east and east to west. Instantly. Since most of us are older, this recent development, has encountered our lives differently. And we use that to judge each other even though most of us never met.

Whatever name we give to the phenomenon, it’s best to understand that yes, it’s been around a long time, but now it’s uncontrollable. And that’s a good thing in a free country. If you don’t like it, you can do what old people used to do, change the channel.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,750
20,591
1,743
#52
Llcoolw sees it this way. Cancel culture is mob mentality amplified by media technology. Causing irrational fear in those being exposed while simultaneously giving deep satisfaction to the exposer.

@CowboyJD was pretty close in the idea of:
“In other words, open competition in the marketplace of ideas.” That marketplace used to be reserved for “talking heads” and those who owned the air waves. Then it shifted. Radio became the marketplace for the old. Soon, radios were in cars. And so were young people. Then came the DJs.

However, there were rare marketplaces that covered coast to coast. The ones that were, were also deeply scripted.

Now anything and everything are not only coast to coast but west to east and east to west. Instantly. Since most of us are older, this recent development, has encountered our lives differently. And we use that to judge each other even though most of us never met.

Whatever name we give to the phenomenon, it’s best to understand that yes, it’s been around a long time, but now it’s uncontrollable. And that’s a good thing in a free country. If you don’t like it, you can do what old people used to do, change the channel.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,303
4,357
1,743
#53
All I did was ask questions in my first part. And the second I stated my opinion on light of those questions.

One side or the other doesn't matter, I believe the point of asking the questions is because there's not enough information.

You provided the email flyer, but nothing to show whether he said anything on the listserv about it being satire, or whether he used university mail or servers to do this through. Both of which seem relevant in regards to the investigation.

Are you able to answer any of my other questions or do they not seem valid to you?
In light of those questions, do you think it wrong to accuse the society members of attempting cancel culture without knowing those answers?
I mean, the university was not gonna give him the diploma per their own policy, but only temporary, and not because of the society, nothing says the society called for it.
You know exactly what you’re doing. It is exactly what I stated. You’re giving all of the benefit of doubt to the Federalist Society. It’s your M.O. If it were truly intellectual curiosity and a search for the truth, it wouldn’t always be to the benefit of the conservatives’ / Republicans’ side of the argument.

Here’s the ListServ message. It was a pretty simple Google search for those intellectually curious:
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploa...d-University-June-1-2021_Redacted.pdf#page=12

Wallace’s email, sent under the subject line “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection,” purported to invite students to attend an event held on January 6—nineteen days earlier. It prominently featured a photo of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaking at then- President Trump’s January 6 “Save America Rally,” which preceded the violence at the U.S. Capitol,5 and a photo of Sen. Josh Hawley raising his fist in support of demonstrators before he entered the Capitol that day.6 The email informed recipients that “[r]iot information will be emailed the morning of” the past event, adding:

“Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy.”
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,785
2,528
1,743
46
DFW
#54
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
C’mon. If the Society didn’t want his graduation to be in jeopardy, I’m sure they would have made that clear. Do you have a statement from them stating this in any way? If so, that’s fine. But I’ve noticed a trend with you making presumptions with no evidence, which always give benefit to the same side of the argument (the Right). “Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?”

I searched for a response from the Federalist Society clarifying they didn’t want a hold on Wallace’s graduation. The closest I found was a Yale law professor calling it cancel culture, supporting @CowboyJD’s original argument. So I guess I can thank you for that.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,750
20,591
1,743
#55
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are making absolutely no sense and going to ridiculous lengths to excuse "your side".

If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

"Oversaturation"? Of First Amendment protected speech? Really? :facepalm:

The federalist society absolutely is responsible for the diploma debacle. It's obvious in the timing of their complaint, content of their complaint, and when they asked the University to pursue prosecution of the complaint.

The flyer was sent out in JANUARY. They waited until late March to even make the complaint and waited until May to ask the administration to pursue the matter.....

"The chapter’s leaders were not amused. They filed a complaint on March 27 with the university, which said in a message to Wallace that it wasn’t until May 22 that the complainants had asked the administration to pursue the matter."

THAT is why the "diploma debacle" occurred.

“In cases where the complaint is filed in proximity to graduation, our normal procedure includes placing a graduation diploma hold on the respondent,” said the spokesman, E.J. Miranda. “The complaint was resolved as expeditiously as possible, and the respondent and complainant have been informed that case law supports that the email is protected speech.”

You REALLY think a group of law students were completely unaware of the procedures and policies of the University when they waited 3-4 months closer to graduation to ask the University to pursue for disciplinary purposes?

Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell,

They absolutely did, in their complaint....

“Wallace defamed the student group, its officers, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,” the complaint said. “Wallace, impersonating the Stanford Federalist Society, wrote on the flyer that ‘Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event,’ insinuating that the student group was encouraging and hosting a riot. He also wrote that Attorney General Paxton advocates for ‘overturn(ing) the results of a free and fair election’ by ‘calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol.’ And he wrote that Sen. Hawley believes that violent insurrections are justified."

You cannot defame someone with obvious satire. Satire is per se not defamatory as a matter of law. 1st Amendment 101. They specifically alleged he posted defamatory material. In doing so, they explicitly alleged it wasn't satire. It was the allegation from the guild that he had defamed them and Hawley and Paxton that would have been a violation warranting disciplinary procedures.

Why is THAT so hard for you to see and admit.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,303
4,357
1,743
#56
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
C’mon. If the Society didn’t want his graduation to be in jeopardy, I’m sure they would have made that clear. Do you have a statement from them stating this in any way? If so, that’s fine. But I’ve noticed a trend with you making presumptions with no evidence, which always give benefit to the same side of the argument (the Right). “Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?”

I searched for a response from the Federalist Society clarifying they didn’t want a hold on Wallace’s graduation. The closest I found was a Yale law professor calling it cancel culture, supporting @CowboyJD’s original argument. So I guess I can thank you for that.
Except, I'm saying there's not enough evidence to say one way or the other, do those saying they are responsible are jumping to conclusions.
You can only make the assumption that they wanted it if they didn't specifically state they didn't, if the natural outcome of an investigation like that would be to withhold his diploma. The only reason given in any story I've read for the holding of the diploma was because the investigation was close to graduation date. And that it was specifically done by the administration, not apparently at the rest of anybody specific. Nothing states that the natural outcome of an investigation of this type would be the withholding of a diploma.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,303
4,357
1,743
#57
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are making absolutely no sense and going to ridiculous lengths to excuse "your side".

If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

"Oversaturation"? Of First Amendment protected speech? Really? :facepalm:

The federalist society absolutely is responsible for the diploma debacle. It's obvious in the timing of their complaint, content of their complaint, and when they asked the University to pursue prosecution of the complaint.

The flyer was sent out in JANUARY. They waited until late March to even make the complaint and waited until May to ask the administration to pursue the matter.....

"The chapter’s leaders were not amused. They filed a complaint on March 27 with the university, which said in a message to Wallace that it wasn’t until May 22 that the complainants had asked the administration to pursue the matter."

THAT is why the "diploma debacle" occurred.

“In cases where the complaint is filed in proximity to graduation, our normal procedure includes placing a graduation diploma hold on the respondent,” said the spokesman, E.J. Miranda. “The complaint was resolved as expeditiously as possible, and the respondent and complainant have been informed that case law supports that the email is protected speech.”

You REALLY think a group of law students were completely unaware of the procedures and policies of the University when they waited 3-4 months closer to graduation to ask the University to pursue for disciplinary purposes?

Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell,

They absolutely did, in their complaint....

“Wallace defamed the student group, its officers, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,” the complaint said. “Wallace, impersonating the Stanford Federalist Society, wrote on the flyer that ‘Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event,’ insinuating that the student group was encouraging and hosting a riot. He also wrote that Attorney General Paxton advocates for ‘overturn(ing) the results of a free and fair election’ by ‘calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol.’ And he wrote that Sen. Hawley believes that violent insurrections are justified."

You cannot defame someone with obvious satire. Satire is per se not defamatory as a matter of law. 1st Amendment 101. They specifically alleged he posted defamatory material. In doing so, they explicitly alleged it wasn't satire. It was the allegation from the guild that he had defamed them and Hawley and Paxton that would have been a violation warranting disciplinary procedures.

Why is THAT so hard for you to see and admit.
Obviously oversaturation was a typo it was supposed to be investigation. And if the investigation had been taken up in March when it was filed why would it have affected graduation that was still over a month away? The university had the choice to withhold the fillings or not and to not investigate the complaint in a timely manner, this the society skinny for them to look at it.
You and I disagree. Oh well.
I think the school should have addressed the complaint dinner and they made a bad decision to withhold the diploma.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,785
2,528
1,743
46
DFW
#58

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,303
4,357
1,743
#59
Nothing states that the natural outcome of an investigation of this type would be the withholding of a diploma.
In fact, it does.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...tudent-who-mocked-the-federalist-society/amp/
In cases where the complaint is filed in proximity to graduation, our normal procedure includes placing a graduation diploma hold on the respondent.
Is March close enough proximity? Or is it because the investigation didn't occur until the society asked the administration to do something about it in May?



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,750
20,591
1,743
#60
Obviously oversaturation was a typo it was supposed to be investigation. And if the investigation had been taken up in March when it was filed why would it have affected graduation that was still over a month away? The university had the choice to withhold the fillings or not and to not investigate the complaint in a timely manner, this the society skinny for them to look at it.
You and I disagree. Oh well.
I think the school should have addressed the complaint dinner and they made a bad decision to withhold the diploma.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
The university didn’t take up an investigation UNTIL THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY ASKED THEM TO....in MAY.

Per procedures of the law school.

On a bogus claim of defamation instead of what is clearly protected speech.

Made by law students that know the difference between satire and defamation.

But again, whatever it takes to defend “your guys”.