With all due respect, I think you have it backwards.
Music that promotes cop killing and raping and other horrible things, is more dangerous than some stupid drunken idiocy from frat boys. Their attitudes are deplorable. And they should be sanctioned. And will be.
But the culture that promotes murder and other felonies as entertainment cannot be less so. It influences thousands, even millions of impressionable kids, and more than a few take it to heart.
The idea that waving a gun around police officers is anything but stupidly dangerous, is a huge problem. Expecting that if something horrible happens is always the fault of insensitive police is injurious to society as a whole. It's hard enough to find good people to put their lives on the line. For you to say that the promotion of that rebellious culture is not incredibly harmful and worse that stupid drunk sometimes barely past their teens or younger is so curious to me. Especially in light of the frequent posts here, I suspect by both of you, that when some kid drives after three beers, that who of us hasn't done the same thing.
So one act of youth stupidity is forgivable by you. But one that is only stupid speech is cause of national embarrassment. The media will be what it is. And this is an embarssment to OU. Unfairly, I would contend.
But why is this act the worst possible action. Many made the case here that an OU football player was close to justified in an assault on a young woman, because she used the N word. I just don't understand why that is the one action that is, with the possible exception of murder, the worst possible act, from your rhetoric here. Why is that worse than some football player on a football field, threatening to injure an opponent, which is considered by many here to be just gamesmenship? Getting in their head.
I can think of a hundred things that you consider to be tolerable in the constitutional freedom of speech. Which is this special in that regard.
I can't believe that you publically promote the act to seriously injure, to be less harmful than the private idiocy of drunk kids too young to drink in some states. Doesn't make me right and you wrong. But why is this the only speech that you'd seem to deem unacceptable?
Music that promotes cop killing and raping and other horrible things, is more dangerous than some stupid drunken idiocy from frat boys. Their attitudes are deplorable. And they should be sanctioned. And will be.
But the culture that promotes murder and other felonies as entertainment cannot be less so. It influences thousands, even millions of impressionable kids, and more than a few take it to heart.
The idea that waving a gun around police officers is anything but stupidly dangerous, is a huge problem. Expecting that if something horrible happens is always the fault of insensitive police is injurious to society as a whole. It's hard enough to find good people to put their lives on the line. For you to say that the promotion of that rebellious culture is not incredibly harmful and worse that stupid drunk sometimes barely past their teens or younger is so curious to me. Especially in light of the frequent posts here, I suspect by both of you, that when some kid drives after three beers, that who of us hasn't done the same thing.
So one act of youth stupidity is forgivable by you. But one that is only stupid speech is cause of national embarrassment. The media will be what it is. And this is an embarssment to OU. Unfairly, I would contend.
But why is this act the worst possible action. Many made the case here that an OU football player was close to justified in an assault on a young woman, because she used the N word. I just don't understand why that is the one action that is, with the possible exception of murder, the worst possible act, from your rhetoric here. Why is that worse than some football player on a football field, threatening to injure an opponent, which is considered by many here to be just gamesmenship? Getting in their head.
I can think of a hundred things that you consider to be tolerable in the constitutional freedom of speech. Which is this special in that regard.
I can't believe that you publically promote the act to seriously injure, to be less harmful than the private idiocy of drunk kids too young to drink in some states. Doesn't make me right and you wrong. But why is this the only speech that you'd seem to deem unacceptable?
