[Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Anything that wont fit in any of the other forums

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

[Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Loud Applause
3
4%
Golf Clap
5
6%
Shrug
18
22%
Groan
28
34%
Upset
13
16%
Anger/I'm done with this
15
18%
 
Total votes: 82
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by lukeyrid13 »

GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
100% with you. I very purposely don't share with my clients that I'm a Christian because I fear they would fire me (real estate agent). The notion is incredulous because they love me and I love them (100% 5 star Zillow reviews from all my past clients). Why can't we just have genuine interactions with folks, even if they disagree with us socially, politically etc.

To those saying does the name change really matter, no it doesn't. But did the name being called Civil War make anyone's life truly worse or affect them? They'd be lying if they said it did. We are looking for change just for the sake of change and 'progress'.

Should we ban women from wearing pearl necklaces because of Pearl Harbor 70 years ago? Should England ban playing 'Revolution' by the Beatles because of the Revolutionary War 300 years ago? Would doing so be progressive? Or does it sound like a massive overreach that's totally unnecessary for innocuous terms that don't in any way actually offend someone? People and institutions need to just grow a backbone and say, "hey this isn't offensive and while we appreciate your concern we are going to keep the name intact".
User avatar
jBeavertonduck
Two Star Recruit
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by jBeavertonduck »

GrandpaDuck wrote:
buckmarkduck wrote:https://theathletic.com/1896342/2020/06 ... alry-game/

Behind a paywall, but this explains how it got changed.

Honestly I always thought Civil War was a bit if a unoriginal name, and we could have done better. But it was also invented by people who thought Beaver are great mascots.

Garret Strong
“For me it did. The Civil War and what it means to America and the United States is that they were basically fighting for their freedom. And for us to label Oregon versus Oregon State that, I don’t think (it’s appropriate). Behind that name comes lives that are no longer with us as well as a whole change of a country because of that particular war. The gravity of that shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

Tyson Colman and Tyner on their thoughts about the name change.

“Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It is the Civil War,” former Oregon linebacker Tyson Coleman wrote in a text. “Quote me.”

“Well, I’m right there with Tyson,” texted Thomas Tyner, a running back for both schools. “I think it’s nothing but stupid.”
Ok, Garret Strong's answer is what has ever so slightly bothered me about the name for decades. "Slightly" in that, I never would have picked it, but I didnt think it was a hill I would die on to remove. Using the name for a sports event for the bloodiest highest stakes event in our nations history seemed to overstate the importance of the game and trivialize the human stakes of the Civil War.

So I wasn't fond of the name, but as someone else mentioned "The Redskins" and "Confederate Battle Flags" would have been multiple times higher on my list. For the former and current Oregon players, using the moment in the location they have influence and leverage I understand. Former and current Duck and Beaver players have zero leverage to go after "The Redskins" name but they obviously did have enough to make this change.

I'm not sure the players are aware but the Civil War name for the game was adopted in the same period of the Oregon's flirtation with the KKK and the national "Lost Cause" glorification campaign of the Confederacy and rewriting of the history books to de-emphasis slavery as the fueling cause of the Civil War.

So I am a sympathetic shrug, who will probably often use the name in the future on this board out of habit.
The problem isn't with the name "Civil War", the problem is that some people seem to think that the term only refers to the war that occurred in the United States from 1861 to 1865. The definition of the term refers to a dispute between factions within the same geographic boundaries. It has nothing to do with the American Civil War.

We can not eliminate every term, statue, organization or title because some person chooses to be offended by it's association to them. We can not all live in a non tolerant society, we have to accept that we all have our points of view and are entitled to them. I do not believe that I have the right to force my beliefs on others and I choose to tolerate others opinions and experiences.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37590
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by UOducksTK1 »

jBeavertonduck wrote:
GrandpaDuck wrote:
buckmarkduck wrote:https://theathletic.com/1896342/2020/06 ... alry-game/

Behind a paywall, but this explains how it got changed.

Honestly I always thought Civil War was a bit if a unoriginal name, and we could have done better. But it was also invented by people who thought Beaver are great mascots.

Garret Strong
“For me it did. The Civil War and what it means to America and the United States is that they were basically fighting for their freedom. And for us to label Oregon versus Oregon State that, I don’t think (it’s appropriate). Behind that name comes lives that are no longer with us as well as a whole change of a country because of that particular war. The gravity of that shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

Tyson Colman and Tyner on their thoughts about the name change.

“Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It is the Civil War,” former Oregon linebacker Tyson Coleman wrote in a text. “Quote me.”

“Well, I’m right there with Tyson,” texted Thomas Tyner, a running back for both schools. “I think it’s nothing but stupid.”
Ok, Garret Strong's answer is what has ever so slightly bothered me about the name for decades. "Slightly" in that, I never would have picked it, but I didnt think it was a hill I would die on to remove. Using the name for a sports event for the bloodiest highest stakes event in our nations history seemed to overstate the importance of the game and trivialize the human stakes of the Civil War.

So I wasn't fond of the name, but as someone else mentioned "The Redskins" and "Confederate Battle Flags" would have been multiple times higher on my list. For the former and current Oregon players, using the moment in the location they have influence and leverage I understand. Former and current Duck and Beaver players have zero leverage to go after "The Redskins" name but they obviously did have enough to make this change.

I'm not sure the players are aware but the Civil War name for the game was adopted in the same period of the Oregon's flirtation with the KKK and the national "Lost Cause" glorification campaign of the Confederacy and rewriting of the history books to de-emphasis slavery as the fueling cause of the Civil War.

So I am a sympathetic shrug, who will probably often use the name in the future on this board out of habit.
The problem isn't with the name "Civil War", the problem is that some people seem to think that the term only refers to the war that occurred in the United States from 1861 to 1865. The definition of the term refers to a dispute between factions within the same geographic boundaries. It has nothing to do with the American Civil War.

We can not eliminate every term, statue, organization or title because some person chooses to be offended by it's association to them. We can not all live in a non tolerant society, we have to accept that we all have our points of view and are entitled to them. I do not believe that I have the right to force my beliefs on others and I choose to tolerate others opinions and experiences.
This

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by GoDucksTroll »

GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
User avatar
OregonFan4Life
All-American
Posts: 12362
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:32 pm

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by OregonFan4Life »

GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
Now that’s fascism! That’s the biggest issue with cancel culture and excessive political correctness, they’re putting a hire-archy of opinions basically saying some beliefs are more valuable than others, which is fine when it comes to beliefs surrounding hatred, but when it comes to someone’s faith and beliefs that’s a self righteous way of life that results in a very closed minded way of thought. It’s absolutely asinine to think someone could be fired simply because of their faith. If someone’s faith is “offensive” to some arrogant closed minded person, then would it be any different if someone’s lack of faith was “offensive” to someone of faith? If someone should be able to be fired because they’re a Christian, then is it any different if someone is able to be fired because of their sexuality? This is the very problem I have with liberals quite frankly, that their beliefs/opinions are morally right, which to me is more dangerous than the conservative mindset that their opinions/beliefs are wiser/smarter.
Image
User avatar
dd10snoop28
Senior
Posts: 4815
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
GM: New Jersey Nets GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by dd10snoop28 »

GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
JK Rowling is being cancelled by all the media, fraudulent "activists", celebrities, and the public at-large for stating the fact that there are only two biological sexes. Do you see how this can be problematic?

Also, who is the be the judge of whose views are morally "right" and others are not?
Image
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by GoDucksTroll »

OregonFan4Life wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
Now that’s fascism! That’s the biggest issue with cancel culture and excessive political correctness, they’re putting a hire-archy of opinions basically saying some beliefs are more valuable than others, which is fine when it comes to beliefs surrounding hatred, but when it comes to someone’s faith and beliefs that’s a self righteous way of life that results in a very closed minded way of thought. It’s absolutely asinine to think someone could be fired simply because of their faith. If someone’s faith is “offensive” to some arrogant closed minded person, then would it be any different if someone’s lack of faith was “offensive” to someone of faith? If someone should be able to be fired because they’re a Christian, then is it any different if someone is able to be fired because of their sexuality? This is the very problem I have with liberals quite frankly, that their beliefs/opinions are morally right, which to me is more dangerous than the conservative mindset that their opinions/beliefs are wiser/smarter.
Firing someone because they say things that are offensive to current societal norms is not fascism.

You can't fire someone, or not hire them, because of their religious views. You can fire them for saying things that go against company policy. If, for example, someone believes what the Quran and Bible say about killing non believers that is their right. But if they come out and say that the pregnant women of those who worship a different god should have the children ripped out of them, as the Bible says, then they can be fired. See the difference?
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by GoDucksTroll »

dd10snoop28 wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
JK Rowling is being cancelled by all the media, fraudulent "activists", celebrities, and the public at-large for stating the fact that there are only two biological sexes. Do you see how this can be problematic?

Also, who is the be the judge of whose views are morally "right" and others are not?
This is becoming too political for my sports board tastes, although I do appreciate a lively debate I don't want to upset the apple cart. My apologies for my responsibility in taking this in that direction. I'll stop, I just want to mention two things to clarify:

* Saying what is "right" is not the way I view it. Appropriate is the word that describes this issue better.

* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. If an LGBTQI+ employee filed a formal complaint, for example if the person who said this was the supervisor of someone born intersex, I would also consider an immediate mitigation strategy to avoid a lawsuit.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37590
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by UOducksTK1 »

GoDucksTroll wrote:
OregonFan4Life wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
Now that’s fascism! That’s the biggest issue with cancel culture and excessive political correctness, they’re putting a hire-archy of opinions basically saying some beliefs are more valuable than others, which is fine when it comes to beliefs surrounding hatred, but when it comes to someone’s faith and beliefs that’s a self righteous way of life that results in a very closed minded way of thought. It’s absolutely asinine to think someone could be fired simply because of their faith. If someone’s faith is “offensive” to some arrogant closed minded person, then would it be any different if someone’s lack of faith was “offensive” to someone of faith? If someone should be able to be fired because they’re a Christian, then is it any different if someone is able to be fired because of their sexuality? This is the very problem I have with liberals quite frankly, that their beliefs/opinions are morally right, which to me is more dangerous than the conservative mindset that their opinions/beliefs are wiser/smarter.
Firing someone because they say things that are offensive to current societal norms is not fascism.

You can't fire someone, or not hire them, because of their religious views. You can fire them for saying things that go against company policy. If, for example, someone believes what the Quran and Bible say about killing non believers that is their right. But if they come out and say that the pregnant women of those who worship a different god should have the children ripped out of them, as the Bible says, then they can be fired. See the difference?
:lol: :lol:

Last I checked, Bible said to not murder. (Duet 5:17). Gonna push to this offtopic, because its a good discussion. But kinda getting away from football.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37590
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by UOducksTK1 »

GoDucksTroll wrote:
dd10snoop28 wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
JK Rowling is being cancelled by all the media, fraudulent "activists", celebrities, and the public at-large for stating the fact that there are only two biological sexes. Do you see how this can be problematic?

Also, who is the be the judge of whose views are morally "right" and others are not?
This is becoming too political for my sports board tastes, although I do appreciate a lively debate I don't want to upset the apple cart. My apologies for my responsibility in taking this in that direction. I'll stop, I just want to mention two things to clarify:

* Saying what is "right" is not the way I view it. Appropriate is the word that describes this issue better.

* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. If an LGBTQI+ employee filed a formal complaint, for example if the person who said this was the supervisor of someone born intersex, I would also consider an immediate mitigation strategy to avoid a lawsuit.
No worries, I just moved the thread. You're good.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37590
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by UOducksTK1 »

"* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. "

Why? Google says there's two biological sexes. Also, what if someone claims there's 52 genders, but I believe in only 50 genders? Or what if I only believe in 2 genders? IF someone at my work believes there is 46 genders, should they be terminated immediately for saying something that contradicts the norm or the beliefs of a different group?

You're playing with relativism, and it doesn't work. Either you allow everyone to have an opinion, or you only allow people to have an opinion that agrees with one world view. So everyone at the work force has to agree THE world view, otherwise they can't work here. Sounds tolerant.

People at my work mock the bible, mock Christians, and mock God CONSTANTLY. Do I complain to HR? No. Even if I did, does my voice matter? No, because I'm an Iranian American that people don't really care about. And people certainly don't care about one's religious views, unless it's on the protected religion list of the world view you are enforcing.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
dd10snoop28
Senior
Posts: 4815
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
GM: New Jersey Nets GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by dd10snoop28 »

GoDucksTroll wrote:
dd10snoop28 wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
JK Rowling is being cancelled by all the media, fraudulent "activists", celebrities, and the public at-large for stating the fact that there are only two biological sexes. Do you see how this can be problematic?

Also, who is the be the judge of whose views are morally "right" and others are not?
This is becoming too political for my sports board tastes, although I do appreciate a lively debate I don't want to upset the apple cart. My apologies for my responsibility in taking this in that direction. I'll stop, I just want to mention two things to clarify:

* Saying what is "right" is not the way I view it. Appropriate is the word that describes this issue better.

* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. If an LGBTQI+ employee filed a formal complaint, for example if the person who said this was the supervisor of someone born intersex, I would also consider an immediate mitigation strategy to avoid a lawsuit.
You may not view it that way, but that is what is happening. The general public isn't cancelling people because their stance on issues is inappropriate in their work environment. If a Christian accountant is pro-life and that is seen as "inappropriate" in the context of the work that is performed, that's false. What they are saying is that the view of the Christian (just using as example) is morally wrong. I've heard the new term called "virtue signaling", which is "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue". That is an apt description of what is happening.
Not sure why saying there are two sexes is in any way inappropriate. Help me out here.
Image
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by GoDucksTroll »

UOducksTK1 wrote:"* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. "

Why? Google says there's two biological sexes. Also, what if someone claims there's 52 genders, but I believe in only 50 genders? Or what if I only believe in 2 genders? IF someone at my work believes there is 46 genders, should they be terminated immediately for saying something that contradicts the norm or the beliefs of a different group?

You're playing with relativism, and it doesn't work. Either you allow everyone to have an opinion, or you only allow people to have an opinion that agrees with one world view. So everyone at the work force has to agree THE world view, otherwise they can't work here. Sounds tolerant.

People at my work mock the bible, mock Christians, and mock God CONSTANTLY. Do I complain to HR? No. Even if I did, does my voice matter? No, because I'm an Iranian American that people don't really care about. And people certainly don't care about one's religious views, unless it's on the protected religion list of the world view you are enforcing.
Are you using the first result on google as https://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/Ho ... 0be%20both. ?

Because if you are then you might have misread that. That is not what the author is saying, they are listing how people had been taught to view sex by what the author calls the Ideology of the Dominant Gender Schema which they call a learned social behavior.

If we view sex as strictly chromosomal then it's not just 46xx and 46xy. Genetically there are other variations, and that explains intersex people. Gender is a whole other issue, but we're sticking with sex - and science says there are more than two.

The genomic aspect of it is far from my expertise, which is HR and employment law. But this has been a topic at several conferences I've been to over the past few years.

If you feel that you're in a hostile environment due to the, say, anti-Christian sentiments/mocking of your co-workers then you should file a complaint with Human Resources. Employment law is meant to protect you as well. That's why it exists.

As for everyone having to have the same world view to work in the same place, that is a bit of hyperbole. First off, you want your employees to follow federal, state, and local laws. Then you want them to follow the code of conduct and ethics every company should have, which evolves as society evolves. As an example, sexual harassment policies are about ~40 years old yet they have obviously become a staple of the workplace. Societal norms shift. They're now shifting as fast as ever, despite the lag that exists between civil courts and legislation.
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by GoDucksTroll »

dd10snoop28 wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
dd10snoop28 wrote:
GoDucksTroll wrote:
GoDucksIn09 wrote:Political correctness has already eroded what has made the country great for some. As a Christian I have certain political views that I no longer can share at work because if I shared them I would get fired. That is not freedom of speech but it is the world we live in at this time with this whole PC crap. I am married to a lovely lady who is not from this country and I wholeheartedly tell her there is a lot of American history that I am not proud of. It is the Civil War that ended slavery. I never once thought that the games between Oregon and Oregon State ever reflected or heightened the true civil war. That is ridiculous to attach that to a name that has been the name for over 100 years.
If the views you hold are offensive enough to get you fired if you voiced them out loud then maybe they're not the greatest views? Just my opinion. The first amendment is there to stop the government from restricting your freedom of speech, not private entities. There are established limits to free speech as well, with both legal and civil consequences.

Also, the Civil War name isn't over 100 years. It's not even the original name for the rivalry.

I will say that I also never viewed the name for the rivalry as having anything to do with the American Civil War. The only time it ever even crossed my mind was when I saw some graphic that looked like two torn flags in a battlefield that looked like an American Civil War graphic I saw. But I think this is a good change. People can still call the rivalry what they want, the universities just shouldn't be endorsing the name when some of their students, and alumni student-athletes disagree with it's use.
JK Rowling is being cancelled by all the media, fraudulent "activists", celebrities, and the public at-large for stating the fact that there are only two biological sexes. Do you see how this can be problematic?

Also, who is the be the judge of whose views are morally "right" and others are not?
This is becoming too political for my sports board tastes, although I do appreciate a lively debate I don't want to upset the apple cart. My apologies for my responsibility in taking this in that direction. I'll stop, I just want to mention two things to clarify:

* Saying what is "right" is not the way I view it. Appropriate is the word that describes this issue better.

* If an employee said something like that only two biological sexes is a fact in work environs then I would advise immediate termination. If an LGBTQI+ employee filed a formal complaint, for example if the person who said this was the supervisor of someone born intersex, I would also consider an immediate mitigation strategy to avoid a lawsuit.
You may not view it that way, but that is what is happening. The general public isn't cancelling people because their stance on issues is inappropriate in their work environment. If a Christian accountant is pro-life and that is seen as "inappropriate" in the context of the work that is performed, that's false. What they are saying is that the view of the Christian (just using as example) is morally wrong. I've heard the new term called "virtue signaling", which is "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue". That is an apt description of what is happening.
Not sure why saying there are two sexes is in any way inappropriate. Help me out here.
To answer your question about sexes see my other reply.

As for the other part, I'm not quite understanding what is being said about the hypothetical accountant who is against reproductive rights. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean that this person gets 'canceled' or fired from their accounting job for their beliefs. Since mind readers don't exist to determine someone's beliefs, I would have to extrapolate that this would have come about as a result of some incident with another employee or a client. In that case I would need much more information.
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: [Poll] Your Reaction to "Civil War" De-Naming

Post by lukeyrid13 »

What!? Where does the Bible say to kill non believers lol. Takes What Would Geez Do to a whole new meaning
Post Reply