jsneb83
All-American
People from around the area call it Sewer City anyway.Does this mean Sioux City has to find a new name.![]()
People from around the area call it Sewer City anyway.Does this mean Sioux City has to find a new name.![]()
It is nonsense. Another example is when the Woodshed lost nudity privileges. This was my post in that thread.It's like that guy who got offended by kchusker_chris' avatar. It was within board rules and 99% of the posters here didn't seem to have a problem with it, but since one guy gets offended by it we have to kowtow to that one guy when he could have simply blocked chris and not made a big stink about something trivial. It's literally nonsense.
It's a similar situation, imho. If a minority dislikes something, then don't view it. I have to get on here every day and read stupid, unreasonable opinions. But I'm not going up to a mod telling them to ban these derps.For starters, I don't really care if this is the new rule. I rarely go to the Woodshed to begin with.
That said, I don't agree with the premise originally stated in the OP and in subsequent posts. I'm reading that the Woodshed was intended as a place for heated discussions to go and not for nude women. I'm not disputing this, however.
What I am concerned about is the fact that you need to ask an admin for the password to gain access into the Woodshed, ergo you should be well aware of what you're getting yourself into. If you're looking at the Woodshed and don't see something you like, that's your own fault. You chose to access this portion of the forum and it is not open to the average viewer on this website unless they have a password. If you have a reason to complain about the Woodshed then you shouldn't be going there in the first place. Therefore, if you're going to cut out nudity, you need to just cut out EVERYTHING that is not related to heated discussions. If this was the original intent, then there is no need for anything else, right?
Again, I have no problem with this implementation and am not opposed to it. I am, however, against the reasoning behind it. It appears like unnecessary censorship. If you're going to give the password out then you should also make sure people know exactly what the Woodshed is for. Otherwise, there is no justification for watering it down when you could have prevented the complaints in the first place from educating people.
I'm not sure. I was under the impression that their was a mutual respect between the two.Doesn't fsu pay the Seminoles or something? I thought there was some sort of deal.
Change the name to the Semenholes. This guy could be their mascot.MLB 51 said:Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens.
Imagine if South Carolina was playing them.Change the name to the Semenholes.MLB 51 said:Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens.
That would make for good television.Imagine if South Carolina was playing them.Change the name to the Semenholes.MLB 51 said:Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens.
"And the c$%ks are ripping the Semenholes apart."
Well stated......posting a link from Indian Country Today regarding the Fighting Sioux mascot......as a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, I personally don't have a problem with it, but other Lakota people may, and I do respect their opinions....anyway here's the link and the A-holes that don't respect other races or cultures....It's not for the general public to determine what is or is not offensive to a particular person or group. It's up to them, and if they're offended, they have a right to make their point. I agree with walksalone that a lot of this is manufactured activism, and in a less politically-correct time this likely wouldn't be (and wasn't, for a long time) an issue. But if someone is offended, we cannot tell them, "You shouldn't be offended." It's up to them. And then it's up to a judge (if it gets that far) to make the call.
EDIT - I'm the (currently) lone "Yes" vote up there. I don't wholly agree with the phrasing of the Yes vote option, but in the context of the above paragraph in this post, it is "racist" or "demeaning" if someone says it is. What is "demeaning" is in the eye of the beholder, much like what defines a religion is in a person's heart/head. A religion is simply a deeply held belief, meaning that if I truly, deeply, really feel that my water cup sitting on my desk is my deity, the government cannot tell me it is not, and they cannot dictate to me how I am to worship it (within certain guidelines, of course).
In much the same way, the government cannot tell me, a free citizen, that I am not allowed to be offended by something. If someone else is not offended that's OK, but it doesn't negate my offense.