You really have gone over to the dark side. One halftime video, and now you're Dick Cheney.

It's a slippery slope.

If you accept the propriety of the government indoctrinating you with a PSA at a sporting event because you happen to agree with the government's position, you are opening up the door to other campaigns of government indoctrination, some of which you may NOT agree with.

Would you be so sanguine about it if the PSA was a piece of military propaganda intended to whip up hatred against some country we planned to invade?

The whole thing is Orwellian to me.

Plus, I happen to disagree with the campus rape culture meme. Reading some of the blogs by radical feminists on the subject was sickening.

Not to focus in on one comment to the point of missing your entire argument, but were you around from 2001 to 2006 or so? We DID have to sit through military propaganda pieces for countries we planned to invade. Except it was planted in every form of mainstream media, not just on a halftime PSA video at a college basketball game. You don't make much of differentiation between the scale or the venue.

Second, do you not at all recall this story from early last year? Given the circumstances described in this story, isn't it not only conceivable, but somewhat likely that other similar attacks and abuse have occured without being reported?

I understand that you're concerned about political correctness and radical feminism running amok, the slippery slope, etc. I am also. Excesses in the rationality of minority victimhood arguments usually invalidate the efficacy of those arguments, and they pass over pretty quickly into the realm of ridicule. But in my experience, whenever people use the slippery slope argumentitive tactic they're usually advocating for a laissez faire status quo (to their personal benefit) and against assuming more responsibility to guard against a rare but devastating result. So we have school massacres about once a month, childhoood obesity, and corporations buying our elections to avoid that slippery slope. How about applying a little more of John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism to balance out your Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand absolutes?

The problem quite frankly is not the content but the fact that our ad time isn't valuable given our putrid attendance. Wichita state doesn't run the psa because they get 10,000 people in a sold out gym and businesses are falling over themselves to reach those people. We need to continue to open up as many revenue streams as possible to be as competitive as possible and you don't do that by giving the government free air time. It's seems to be indicative of the financial problems in the AD over the past year

So basically swella, if you're looking for someone to blame, point the finger at Grace Calhoun again

super,

As much as I like to pin things on Grace Calhoun (the gift that keeps on giving), that might be a stretch. We don't really know whether the PSA is aired for free, or whether the NCAA and/or White House pay for the privilege of running it. Probably Loyola donates the time free of charge, but some government agencies do pay to have their PSAs shown. Either way, it doesn't change my objections to it being shown at halftime.

And I really hope that in the name of increasing revenue streams, I won't have to be bombarded at halftime with streams of video ads of any sort. But I suppose that is wishful thinking.

JCT,

It might take a while for me to respond to your post, but I will eventually. I'm brushing up on my Immanuel Kant, and it's a little slow-going, especially since I'm reading it in the original German (I find that Kant loses so much of his subtlety and nuance in translation.)

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this little tidbit:



One more thing. It would really help me formulate a response if I knew just exactly where you actually stand on the issue I raised of whether the 1 is 2 Many PSA should be played at halftime of Loyola games. You never came right out and stated your view. You explained that one might be well-advised to apply John Stuart Mills' Utitilitarianism to arrive at a conclusion, but you yourself never got around to applying such to the situation at hand. I would love to see how that all works!

Swella, to answer your direct question about the controversial nature of this PSA, I would have to answer: ...not really.

A few people seem to reflexively disagree with just about anything the president does, and are therefore offended by seeing his face at a basketball game. I'm not very sympathetic to that view, and I would like to think that if a Republican president delivered a message at a game, I would listen and consider it.

I don't feel that rises to the level of indoctrination. Seems like steady terrain rather than a slippery slope.

Others, like you (initially, at least), disagree with the content. I've sometimes reacted with shock and horror to your more provocative posts, but you've been proven right often enough that I give them serious consideration now.

I do have some sympathy for your position on fraternities. (And I obviously think false accusations and overzealous prosecutors are despicable.) You were in a fraternity at Loyola, right? I don't think the current environment reflects poorly on the past. It does exist for a reason, though. The majority on campus avoids them and their parties because they are frankly perceived as being dangerous.

This gets to the heart of the issue and why I genegenerally agree with the content of the PSA.

Does every man or every fraternity commit sexual crimes? Of course not. The PSA doesn't say that. It simply says that as a culture, we should be aware of where the lines are. The old "boys will be boys" mentality doesn't apply anymore.

I found the first article you shared interesting. It sets up a strawman argument (rapists are despised! what are we talking about here?) and skillfully tears it down. Unfortunately there are situations that arise all the time that fall far short of violent rape, but are still wrong. Awareness of that is a good thing.

ADDITION:

The point about whether it is reaching the intended audience is a good one. It's another topic, but I would like to see less of a student focus at games considering they are outnumbered by families and older fans. I'd like to see the students get rewards to get them to games, but I'd like more of a family focus in terms of the other entertainment.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

My opinion is the PSA is a minor nuisance. But it's worth it on balance if it helps in a small way to prevent sexual assault (by making taking advantage of women more starkly unacceptable within peer groups, helping vicitms feel less guilty about being taken advantage of, getting young people talking about what is acceptable and what isn't, etc.). You may disagree with that view, but that's how I see it.

As for the government proclamation of disapproval of sexual assault, I don't see that as particularly eggregious, unprecedented, indoctrination, or being over the line. There have been plenty of examples of government participation/sponsorship of programs and awareness campaigns in the past over which some people have had objections.


Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum


Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum


Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum

Thanks both of you guys for your thoughtful replies.

The one thing I can't accept and can't understand is the denial that playing the PSA at halftime is divisive and politically charged. It is so obvious to me from the responses on Ramblermania that it is, deservedly or not, divisive and political. The split is between the board conservatives (Brot, JC64, SubGod(?)) and the liberals (ahunte and JCT), with me the apostate liberal joining the conservative camp.

I think ahunte's argument is more that the PSA SHOULDN'T be divisive (because what reasonable person could disagree with its content?), and ignores the EFFECT it has on real people, not the hypothetical "Reasonable Man" of the law.

I'll have more later, but I wanted to make this one point now.

Best Christmas present EVER!

I like this line so much I'm thinking of making it my signature.





.

I hate to nitpick, but other than most of my basketball predictions, when have I ever been wrong?

Semi-seriously, I take this to mean you have come around to my way of thinking on Grace Calhoun. That makes me feel good. I think history has proven me mostly right about her and her administration. I am still waiting for 25yearstreak to break his nearly year-long silence on the subject and submit a sincere mea culpa to me. To make it easier for him, he can simply copy and paste the following: Swella, you were right and I was wrong. I'm an idiot.