Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • What Should the Title of This Post Be?

    Posted by David Foster on August 19th, 2012 (All posts by )

    Should this be a “Just Unbelievable,” or a “Sad and Disturbing, but not Surprising?”

    A student at the University of Southampton discovered that her photograph had been digitally modified by university officials, in deference to the “cultural sensitivities” of certain students and prospective students.

    (via Margaret Soltan)

    And, in related news, here’s a Canadian man who was arrested for walking his dog in the vicinity of Muslim demonstrators.

    (via Five Feet of Fury)

     

    10 Responses to “What Should the Title of This Post Be?”

    1. PenGun Says:

      The Canadian who was arrested does little but hate Muslims. You just have to read a bit. He was obviously trolling the Muslim demonstration with his dog to incite trouble.

    2. David Foster Says:

      PenGun…So what if he does?

      Do you think that an individual’s ability to perform otherwise-legal actions should be legally constrained by others choosing to be “offended” by those actions?

    3. pst314 Says:

      Clearly PenGun would support the arrest for incitement of interracial couples who walk in front of KKK demonstrators.

      …or Spike Lee. :-)

    4. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Yes, the loss of freedom is always excused as sparing someone pain (not the literal sort, of course).

    5. Percy Dovetonsils Says:

      Hey, PenGun: from the “Pussy Riot Dog Whistle” post, your comment:

      “August 17th, 2012 at 5:27 pm

      Respect our beliefs or we will put you in jail. It’s the same the world over.

      It breeds contempt and rightly so.”

      Except for Muslims. They are the pet of the Western leftist, and as such are allowed to jump all over the furniture.

    6. Nicholas Says:

      “And, in related news, here’s a Canadian man who was arrested for walking his dog in the vicinity of Muslim demonstrators.”

      Funny, I was at the park with my friend’s dog yesterday while she was off shopping and two kids came up to me (aged about 4-5 and 7-9) and started asking questions about the dog, including where do you buy a dog, what do they eat and so on. They wanted to throw the ball so I let them and they spent about half an hour playing with the dog and generally being excited.

      Later their parents came looking for them.. women wearing headscarves. I got the impression they were probably Muslims. I suspect they weren’t too happy that their kids ran off to play with dogs. I wonder how they will deal with this when they get older, especially if their parents won’t let them get a dog.

    7. PenGun Says:

      Sad. Very little reason here. Just thinly disguised hatred.

    8. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Or … speaking of provocative acts, PenGun, the right of Illinois Nazis to march through a largely Jewish neighborhood of Skokie was upheld … it was a free speech issue, or so the Illinois Supreme court held.

      “The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march in Skokie when it ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute “fighting words.”

      So … a dog and/or an Israeli flag … on that principle (which is in another country and jurisdiction entirely, but let it go as I am establishing the free-speech equivalence here) displaying something offensive to a gathered body does not constitute fighting words. Never mind the good taste and consideration issue – beside the point. Which is that if the principle of free speech is to be upheld, than it must also upheld for speech that we do not agree with, or those who are or hold themselves to be offended by it. If this principle is to be upheld in the US, then I am afraid that law enforcement officials would simply have to tell the Offended Moslem Body to suck it up and adjust. You apparently are in Canada, so it seems that your mileage may vary.

    9. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “Very little reason here. Just thinly disguised hatred.”

      Then why do you hang around ? Just to troll ?

    10. Angie Schultz Says:

      Sad. Very little reason here. Just thinly disguised hatred.

      But enough about you…