Lorewarn
-
Posts
2,734 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Lorewarn
-
-
35 minutes ago, Red Five said:
Gotta get the OL better or it could be a long year
People happy to see us move on from Adrian and excited about Casey are in for a rude awakening if the line and skill positions aren't shored up around him.
Adrian was a great player asked to do too much; Casey is a very similar type of quarterback. The biggest difference between AM and some of his more successful peers is that they only need to make 10 baller plays per game, while we relied on him needing to make 15. Usually he'd make 14.
-
6
-
-
13 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:
I'd be very curious to see if another religion could even get a case to this SCOTUS and how they would rule. Would they even take the case? I'm not sure.
That's something I was just thinking about too. Has a religions freedom case on behalf of a non-Christian ever made it in front of SCOTUS?
-
5 minutes ago, Redux said:
Right wing twitter is popping off today with everything that would have gotten them banned the last 2yrs
Did all of the employees and algorithms and terms of service change at the stroke of midnight?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:
The potential danger of the Islamic faith is obvious to most reasonable people, even popular figures on the left like Sam Harris and Bill Maher.
There is no danger "of the Islamic faith". There's danger of radical zealots, who use religious ideology as a weapon, which Islam has a bit more notable of a share of. Language like this implies that it's baked inherently into the religion, which it isn't.
2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:But in this situation, the fringe isn’t small.
The fringe is absolutely small. There are two billion Muslims worldwide, and almost all of them are peaceful people who find terrorism horrific and evil.
-
1
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, Mavric said:
Possibly some recency bias because I was also at the 2001 Oklahoma game but from start to finish I think this was the most electric atmosphere I've ever been involved with.
I think Memorial has definitely been as loud as this plenty of times, but I've never heard the animosity and bloodlust from the crowd that existed that night. Still gives me chills when I watch the youtube highlight videos.
-
13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:
When NU played Penn State the week after the Jerry Sandusky issue and firing of Joe Paterno, Ron Brown led a prayer prior the game where both teams got together at midfield. I didn't have an issue with it, but there were people who thought it was inappropriate. After the game, I think Brown and the other coaches said it wasn't a prayer and more of a "time of reflection" or something to that effect.
Not sure if Brown said that or not, but if so it's definitely a lie - that was an explicitly Christian prayer. (there's video where you can hear his words). I'd be curious to hear from someone well educated on constitutional law on this one, but looking back 11 years later it feels entirely inappropriate to make this moment explicitly Christian; imagine the backlash if a player decided not to go out for that moment.
-
10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:
This^^^
If he’s not forcing his players to participate, I see absolutely no harm.The bible verse @Lorewarn posted may apply to why/how this guy is choosing to pray but it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the school or government infringing on his right to practice his religion as he sees fit. If he wants to do it on the 50 yard line after games, fine, just don’t require anyone else to participate. IMO the school is wrong here.
My guess is that the Supreme Court will probably rule on his side, and I think that's the right move constitutionally. I guess there's some argument that the public presence of it could create an implied social pressure to participate, but I doubt that will stand up legally.
-
Former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy says he never wanted to become a symbol of the religious right, or to have his name mentioned by political figures including Sen. Ted Cruz and former President Donald Trump.
All he wanted, he says, was to connect with young people by coaching football, and to connect with God by saying a brief midfield prayer after each game.
"I'd take a knee and thank God for what the guys just did and the opportunity to be a coach," Kennedy told ESPN, adding: "I wanted to hang out with my players and develop these young men."
Yet the 52-year-old finds himself out of coaching and in the midst of a raging legal battle ignited when he insisted on taking a knee at midfield to pray after games, often with students. Bremerton public school officials fired him in 2015 after he refused to stop his on-field prayers, which they said violated the Constitution's prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
Bremerton's athletic director made clear to Kennedy the prayers were against the rules, prompting Kennedy to post on Facebook, "I think I just might have been fired for praying" -- although at that point he was still employed. That was enough to transform Kennedy's tussle with the school into a cause célèbre. The school district received "thousands of emails, letters and phone calls from around the country" regarding Kennedy's prayers, according to court papers.
If Kennedy wanted to continue praying after games, the letter concluded, he needed to do so separate from students and in a way that was not obvious to onlookers. At one point, Kennedy said, school officials offered to accommodate him at home games by allowing him to pray in the press box above the stadium's bleachers, or inside the school, which required walking several hundred yards and up several flights of steps.
Kennedy said he stopped the public prayer for one game. But as he was driving home afterward, he regretted giving in to what he saw as "pressure to break his commitment to God," his lawyers said in their Supreme Court petition. He said he turned his car around, returned to the empty stadium and with tears running down his face, delivered a silent prayer from the 50-yard line.
Thoughts on this legally and ethically?
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven... And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
-
Found this article a few days ago. Seems to be even more interesting now that Musk is buying Twitter. I've been a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's work for a good while, and found this to be a great insight (it's quite long though)
there is a direction to history and it is toward cooperation at larger scales. We see this trend in biological evolution, in the series of “major transitions” through which multicellular organisms first appeared and then developed new symbiotic relationships. We see it in cultural evolution too, as Robert Wright explained in his 1999 book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Wright showed that history involves a series of transitions, driven by rising population density plus new technologies (writing, roads, the printing press) that created new possibilities for mutually beneficial trade and learning. Zero-sum conflicts—such as the wars of religion that arose as the printing press spread heretical ideas across Europe—were better thought of as temporary setbacks, and sometimes even integral to progress. (Those wars of religion, he argued, made possible the transition to modern nation-states with better-informed citizens.) President Bill Clinton praised Nonzero’s optimistic portrayal of a more cooperative future thanks to continued technological advance.
The early internet of the 1990s, with its chat rooms, message boards, and email, exemplified the Nonzero thesis, as did the first wave of social-media platforms, which launched around 2003. Myspace, Friendster, and Facebook made it easy to connect with friends and strangers to talk about common interests, for free, and at a scale never before imaginable. By 2008, Facebook had emerged as the dominant platform, with more than 100 million monthly users, on its way to roughly 3 billion today. In the first decade of the new century, social media was widely believed to be a boon to democracy. What dictator could impose his will on an interconnected citizenry? What regime could build a wall to keep out the internet?
The high point of techno-democratic optimism was arguably 2011, a year that began with the Arab Spring and ended with the global Occupy movement. That is also when Google Translate became available on virtually all smartphones, so you could say that 2011 was the year that humanity rebuilt the Tower of Babel. We were closer than we had ever been to being “one people,” and we had effectively overcome the curse of division by language. For techno-democratic optimists, it seemed to be only the beginning of what humanity could do.
In February 2012, as he prepared to take Facebook public, Mark Zuckerberg reflected on those extraordinary times and set forth his plans. “Today, our society has reached another tipping point,” he wrote in a letter to investors. Facebook hoped “to rewire the way people spread and consume information.” By giving them “the power to share,” it would help them to “once again transform many of our core institutions and industries.”
In the 10 years since then, Zuckerberg did exactly what he said he would do. He did rewire the way we spread and consume information; he did transform our institutions, and he pushed us past the tipping point. It has not worked out as he expected.-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Apathy said:
And here come the deranged lunatics spreading misinformation…fear mongering
Shaun King is an absolute clown grifter dips#!t idiot.
My question is where the hell did Elon get the cash for this?
-
1 hour ago, Jeremy said:
Do you guys wanna win or not? If you donate, they will come.
Not the victory but the action; in the deed the glory.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, knapplc said:
What is "the Islamist problem?" Is that anything like Hitler's "Jewish problem?"
I don't and wouldn't use the language of "the islamist problem", because I think it paints with a painfully too wide brush, but I think it's also naive to to not recognize that islam has a very violent fringe. It is absolutely a fringe, and is still small, but compared to other major religions seems to be disproportionately troublesome.
I'm drastically far from being an expert on world religion and am glad to be proven wrong but per my perspective of the world there's far more violent extremism acted out under the banner of Islam than there is under Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/Buddhism.
But in case I'm not abundantly clear the overwhelming majority of Muslim folks, especially immigrants, are kind humble peaceful folks, and the crazies don't define the religion the same way that Westboro Baptist Church doesn't define Christianity.
-
1 hour ago, Toe said:
To my eye as a photographer, it looks like somebody punched up the saturation too much in Photoshop. It looks about as real as the stuff you put in a kid's Easter basket. But I imagine that's done with the expectation of some degree of fading over the life of the turf.
Not sure how much intention is behind it or not, but it's definitely the case every time we get new turf.
Here's 2013:
Here's 2005 on what looks like a cloudy day:
-
1
-
-
The red was obviously starting to fade, but it still had plenty of color in it and was a stretch to classify it as pink imo.
Although I guess my standard to compare it to was 2011-12, and everything compared to then is leagues and leagues better.
-
7 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:
Earlier in this conversation, someone used the word "normal." That's a word I don't use a lot at work, because when working with people who have hurt themselves and are trying to rehab to improve function/return home/whatever, depending on how they interpret that word, it may make them feel deficient or bad about themselves by implying they're NOT normal, and a lot of them are fragile, and I don't want to do that anyway.
Way too many people keep treating mental health, and being mentally fragile, as a sign of weakness or poor spirit/toughness. Nah, you can be the toughest person imaginable and still have the forces of hate and scorn and mocking and discrimination and humiliation against you be tougher than you still.
Plenty of folks would do well to share your perspective, and then extrapolate it to be applicable not just to physical health but mental health as well. Large parts of this larger conversation culturally would be nearly as necessary.
-
5 hours ago, teachercd said:
Trying to defend that because you feel like it sort of falls under the flag of your political party is nuts and you know it.
I don't have a political party, but I do absolutely strive to give everyone dignity that I can, especially the ones that society casts aside.
5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:It’s amazing people defend that kinda stuff
Who's defending and what kinda stuff?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:
Everyone wants their own special name or title or gender or deviancy and they want to be offended when normal people don’t want to cater to them. Kinda fed up with it and tired of hearing how f#&%ed up people are. Suck it up, do the right thing and STFU. (Not you but all these effin whiners)
There's nothing whiny or unreasonable about wanting and hoping to be treated with dignity and respect unless you've done something to deserve being treated otherwise.
That's all the overwhelming majority of people want. Sure some loud people on social media want to be offended; but most everyone in real life isn't looking for a fight, but some folks because of something they can't help about themselves are constantly the victims of great offense without looking for it or wanting it. And most of them handle it with a surprising amount of grace and resiliency.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:
2nd- It doesn’t matter to me who they are specifically addressing. If you’re a teacher you shouldn’t be putting that message on social media. Now if it’s a private interaction go ahead and say that when warranted. It’s just not a good look for a teacher to be making that public statement and I can clearly see why their school/employer would not put up with it.
re: the bolded I agree and I can totally see the same in why people aren't down with it. Devo just asked me how I personally felt about it, and I don't have an issue with it.
11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:3rd- I don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with a person wouldn’t be getting called a pedophile unless A) they acted on their sick urge or B) they were stupid enough to make known they are attracted to kids. I mean fine, I’m sure there are those who successfully fight their sick urge but imo they should only be worrying about continuing to avoid pedophile behavior. Being concerned about how people refer to them just shouldn’t be an issue. Don’t diddle kids and STFU. No need to have some special MAP name. There isn’t any need for them to be referred to as anything if they don’t act on it and if/when they do, they’re a pedophile. What, are we supposed to feel sorry for them because they have sick, disturbing desires or be impressed because they don’t do disgusting things? I really don’t get it.
Being concerned about our social standing is one of the most foundational things baked into our DNA as a species, there's no getting around it.
Do you think being treated as a disgusting monster and lumped in with people who do act on it makes their fight to not act on it easier or harder?
Do you think being attracted to kids and doing everything you can to make sure you never abuse a kid is easier or harder if you can never talk to anybody about it?
I don't know what we're supposed to do about it practically, but it's weird to me that you/we wouldn't want to provide resources and encourage the people cursed with a perversion trying to conquer it. Because if they don't, then, you know, they end up abusing kids, and we all agree that's the last thing we ever want to happen.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:
I 100% agree with @DevoHusker on this.
1st- Totally inappropriate for him to be addressing transgender to K-2 students.
2nd- No teacher should put out on social media to “f#&% them” referencing their parents.
3rd- I don’t care the guy’s rationale, pedophiles are not and shouldn’t be referred to as “minor attracted persons”. Why in TF should anyone want to try to normalize deviant pedophiles because some of them prefer MAP. It’s wrong so eff that guy.
1st - That's what I said, so I guess Devo and you don't disagree with me there.
2nd - Fair enough, but they're not addressing their students here, they're addressing their tiktok followers, and there's an argument that when they're posting on tiktok they're not a teacher, they're just a person. I wouldn't do what this person did, but if I'm friends with someone who's parents are abusive or have disowned them or are otherwise a source of pain for someone, I'll absolutely say 'f#&% your parents' if that's the solidarity they need from me (which it has been before).
3rd - I'm fine not seeing eye to eye here.
22 minutes ago, nic said:Pedophiles do damage to children that cannot be undone and likely creates future pedophiles among other life problems for the victims. I have zero sympathy and this professor makes me sick. That’s dark stuff.
All pedophiles no matter what, or only the pedophiles who actually do something? Asking in general, and also because the third person I posted is very clearly talking about people who are attracted towards kids but are not acting on it but are constantly fighting to never commit any sex offenses. The entire point of their book is preventing sexual abuse against children, not normalizing it.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:
I disagree with your stance, on each of them, but thanks for sharing your pov
Curious to hear more; what do you find alarming about each?
-
11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:
It’s just nuts that we haven’t upgraded the system since the 1960s. It’s as though the people in charge of funding it don’t want the IRS to have the technology to look at their taxes.
SHUT UP THE IRS IS DOING A GREAT JOB AND WE'RE ALL PAYING EXACTLY OUR FAIR SHARE ON TAXES GUYS SHUT UP SHUT UP
Don't listen to him IRS!! You don't need better technology
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 8/9/2021 at 9:04 AM, Dr. Strangelove said:
Yeah, this sounds pretty stupid and is likely not true. Investigate it, sure. But it is almost certainly untrue.
As for "abolish ICE", any Democrat running on that message or any pushing that message within the party deserves to lose. It is not only a dumb idea, but it will also cost them elections in an environment where they already play at a massive disadvantage.
I agree that it can easily cost them elections, but why is it a dumb idea?
It was founded in 2003. Was America some lawless hellscape before then?
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:
Well, I responded to your post, so probably the three separate cases you linked .
The first guy I'll say two things. One, I don't think there's any reason to bring up the topic unprompted for that age group. Second, with that being said, nothing he said was wrong or controversial outside of not needing to say it in the first place.
The second one is 100% innocuous. It has zero to do with sexuality or gender and is a harmless encouragement, presumably towards his tiktok followers, not his students. Not sure what other content of his is out there that led to him getting fired.
The third one the guy explicitly makes clear that he isn't at all endorsing pedophelia, he just holds an opinion of respecting the terminology that groups of people prefer. Instinctually it makes me a bit uneasy but I always lean on the side of being able to have conversations and understand other folks, especially the ones that we just deem monsters (primarily so we don't have to actually deal with what makes them that way).
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:
You're upset about the "double standard" but not upset about those educators/what they said?
Not sure. Depends on which ones you're talking about. I'm glad to offer my thoughts on any individual example.
43 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:They literally re-posted the exact message that idiot already posted! Do you really not understand how that works?? I think you actually do.
You know that he had his profile public and/or had his real name attached to it at the time? I don't.
Let's say his name was public. Then I'll go back to my original point that there is no story here, and Taylor Lorentz is at worst doing exactly the same thing as libsoftiktok is, as her name was also publicly available.
High school football coach prays at midfield, now in Supreme Court religious liberty case
in Politics & Religion
Posted
You're probably right, but I've got a sneaking suspicion based off of his quotes and recollection of the story that there is more here than his argument is letting on. Mainly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he was making a much bigger show out of it than his version of events implies.