Sci said:Wow. I make a post and don't check the thread for a few days, and I turn out to have inadvertantly derailed the entire thing. Sorry about that!
No problem... and thanks for responding as you have, by the way...
Seriously, my intent was not to turn it into a political discussion, but to attack the OP's implication that the re-casting was some sort of serious crisis or problem.
That part was fairly obvious... and I tend to agree. I was just rankled at the tossing out of... as I originally stated (before things got more heated), a number of the points you tossed out were very "debatable" and as such were certainly inappropriate for this particular forum. I'm guessing that they just came "naturally" and as such, you didn't think (at the moment you were writing) that they might rankle some of the other folks here... right? I'll certainly accept your statement that you didn't MEAN to do that (as you stated below). But tossing out terms like "illegal war" and comment about supposedly criminal behavior by the attorney general (neither of which, I'd argue, have any legal or moral basis... but which I know are treated as absolute truth by many of the Kent State faculty... which led me to my comment)... well, they just INVITE a political argument. And even if it's your heartfelt belief... saying that sort of inflammatory stuff is.. ahem... hazardous to the integrity of the thread.
I hope the fact that I didn't even look at this thread for several days after -- and certainly have no intention of arguing any political points -- shows that the post was not made with the intention to troll or anything like that.
Fair 'nuff... and at this point, honestly, I'm much more favorably inclined towards you than I am towards the guys who (1) misread the comment about your alma mater ENTIRELY, or (2) attempted to raise the old canard about so-called "McCarthyism" again (which is similar, in terms of argument, to calling the other guy Hitler... it says nothing except that you just don't like the other guy and view him and his viewpoints as consummately evil... it's otherwise an entirely unconstructive argument style).
I am, indeed, a Kent State University student.
Like I said... I figured as much.
I'm also a KSU student who is perceived as being considerably more conservative than the majority of Flashes. (It's funny -- in my hometown, I'm a radical liberal, and in Kent, I'm a kneejerk conservative, and all without ever changing my views!)
Yep, that's pretty much been my experience with what we tend to refer to as "Kent State Kiddies" around here. I'm pleased that you're considered a "conservative" by your peers...it means that you haven't be coopted completely yet!
The term "kiddies" was first brought up (not applying that to YOU right now, mind you) in my experience in regards to the groups of "roving bands of Kent State students" who would go around ripping up yard signs for Republican candidates, would be seen... ahem... "relieving themselves" on cars that had bumper stickers that showed any sort of conservative bent... or slashing tires... or any of that stuff. It was raised, and is fairly commonly used, to describe childish and hateful behavior by the most infantile and obnoxious subgroup of Kent State students... but it's stuck because the Kent State faculty showed little (if any) interest in punishing the "kiddies" who did this stuff. When the administration gives tacit support to this sort of thing, and protects the "kids" rather than making them take responsibility for their actions... it has an impact on the community at large.
Obviously this isn't ALL Kent State students... but it's pretty typical that when those things happen in the greater Cleveland/Akron region, it's usually tied to Kent State in SOME fashion. Sounds like you're not one of those... that's a GOOD thing...
However, as I've interned in both the Ohio and US Senates -- and, for that matter, have been the one responsible for putting food on my family's table for a couple of summers now -- I rather object to the implication that I haven't been in the "real world," and I also object to the assumption that I want to in any way suppress other peoples' freedom of speech. If someone wants to express a political view, I have no problem with that.
Fair enough... and this was actually the sort of response I was hoping to hear. By posting my comment "in the clear," I was inviting you to reply, after all.
You're still there, in a world that I do not consider "reality," (aka academia in general and Kent State in particular), and my personal experiences with government lead me to WISH that most of those people had to lead "real lives" instead of being able to become permanent "fixtures" in the halls of power... hence my strong support for the concept of term limits... but it also sounds like you have some grounding in real-life as well, unlike most of your peers at KSU.
My point stands, that most of those at KSU and similar places eventually learn that, outside of the protected, insular environs they're in today, they must be MUCH more diplomatic about how they handle themselves. Eventually, most people get to a point where they can start expressing themselves freely again (usually once they've got a really impressive resume and body of work, are settled into their community, and have made themselves somewhat "indispensible" in one or more areas). But you don't get to that point without figuring out that you have to pick battles.
I'm an unusual case, in that my natural "confrontationalism" comes in very useful in my job. (My nickname is "bulldog" at work... I'm the guy that can usually get the "big dogs" to give in if they're wrong, and my employers appreciate that... comes in particularly handy when dealing with patent lawsuits, by the way...
)
Again, I didn't post to start a political debate, but simply to bring up topics that strike me as being worthy of the sort of "this is a major crisis" attitude that the OP had in order to argue that the re-casting of TOS roles is not worthy of such a level of importance being attached to it.
Understood...
If those topics reflected a political orientation, so be it -- I never claimed not to have political opinions. Certainly, one could just as validly argue the same point I did using a conservative political orientation. The political orientation of those examples, and the examples themselves, were not the point of my post.
Fair enough... and as far as I'm concerned, you and I are "good" now. Agreed?
