I hope everyone keeps this situation in mind the next time that offensive tweets from the past are brought into the mainstream. Yes, even from your political or ideological opponents.
Time to cut out our Busch Light love affair
- Thread starter Knownothing
- Start date
And Hawk Central was free content while Iowa State content got stashed behind a paywall...
I can't even remember the last time I dropped a penny on that garbage paper. Maybe have bought one off the stand if something big happened that I want to save a print paper for but other than that no type of subscription here. Last time I bought one off the stand there was hardly anything to it and most of the content was just recycled AP stories I've already seen online for free. For as much as they have been struggling to stay afloat financially you'd think they'd show some caution with controversial content to avoid the exact thing that just happened to them this week.
From a PR standpoint I don't see how they can just stay silent on this huge gaffe and not expect it to hurt their bottom line. Time to own up to the mess they created and work to rebuild what little they have left of their reputation anymore.
The story has gone global. The first line is my favorite. There are a few of those around here as well.
https://www.rt.com/usa/469624-cancel-culture-des-moines-plague/
Thanks to the efforts of professional complainers, we’re all one off-color tweet away from being doxxed and exiled. The disease of ‘cancel culture’ has reared its ugly head again,
https://www.rt.com/usa/469624-cancel-culture-des-moines-plague/
Thanks to the efforts of professional complainers, we’re all one off-color tweet away from being doxxed and exiled. The disease of ‘cancel culture’ has reared its ugly head again,
My wife and I said last night we are going to make sure we save this story to show our kids around 10 years from now when they are teenagers with social media accounts. It's a perfect example of how you have to show restraint with the content you post because you never know who could dig it up years later to put you in a negative light or use it against you.
The ironic thing about this whole mess is IMO the reporter who wrote this piece had WAY more offensive things and much more posts of it in his social media past than Carson did so it was pure hypocrisy why the DMR chose to go down the path they did then come up with a BS excuse/defense of how they felt they needed share Carson's tweets while basically saying very little about the same issues with the reporter himself. It didn't take but a matter of minutes for the public to dig that stuff up about him so either the DMR doesn't do very good background checks on their own employees to avoid an embarrassment like that or they misjudged how the public would dig all that up - probably a bit of both I'm sure.
Big difference between lighting up dark corners of a politician's lifestyle, and of a random kid raising money for charity. Absolutely not the same thing.
You are probably not opted in to the political forums. I would say don't if that's the case, but if you are, you can see why certain posters appear to be defending the journalisming that was done by the Register. Cancel culture has become a strong political tool used very extensively by a certain side, and they want to keep said tool. That is all.
Yes and no. I agree that bringing to light past tendencies of a politician is fair game if only to keep a closer eye on the future, but in essence you are saying people can't and won't change at all in a significant amount of time. Now that amount of time, age of poster, context can be debated, but I can tell you I have changed my life and who I am significantly in 8 years.
I completely agree with that. My issue is with their purpose. A politician or someone pursuing power should be ridiculed for mistakes and put under serious microscopy to see what their character is like both now and back then. A kid trying to raise money for a charity... is not that. The money isn't going to him, it's just routed through him to the hospital. There's no need for that microscopy, it doesn't serve a function here.
It's also worth noting that 16-24 is a big difference from, say, 42-50. There's a lot of growth from a 16-year-old. A lot changes in that age range. Now, a 50-year-old is probably largely the same person they were at 42 (not always, but probably). This kind of context matters here, I think.
It’s still different. This kid isn’t trying spend my tax dollars and make laws that affect me and my family. We didn’t need to see Carson Kings past. We definitely need to see politicians pasts because it can absolutely be life or death for some people.
You're saying there is a reason people are grouped into two major age ranges, under 18 and 18 and over? No way!
I agree with most of what you put, especially that there was no need to put CK under a microscope for and I cannot see what their reasoning was for it.
As for a politician, I am not as concerned about what they were like. Yes they will catch some flack like Robert Byrd did, but again people can and do change not just in their younger years.
I am 41 now and again have made significant changes in my life in the last 8 years and would be saddened to be judged on what I was like just 8 years ago.
It’s always in there though. Anything you were capable of 8 years ago you are capable of now. I still drink quite a bit but not like I did in my teens and 20’s. I like to think I’ve turned the corner and changed but then I have too much once every 3 or 4 months and my wife has to punch me to get me to stop pissing in the house plants at 4 am and I’m reminded again.
Funny, but not surprising. The editorial board suffers from a lack of any kind of ideological diversity. The net result was a product of group think. They debated until they could come up with a justification because they're all like minded. A group of people with diverse ideological backgrounds would not have come to such a conclusion.
Not sure I completely agree with this. I saw the way my actions effected the people I most care about and absolutely will not go down that road again. Every situation is different though.
I'm also absolutely not saying that we shouldn't dig into a politician's background, but I am just more mindful of what their more current actions are like so in essence take it with a grain of salt until the spots start to rear their ugly head again.
Many, many reasons for that distinction...
Ultimately, yes, the stuff Carson tweeted wasn't good. However, he handled it as well as he could have, and it has no bearing on the donation event whatsoever. The digging and release of this info just doesn't jive with the overall theme at all, and frankly, I'm surprised that the DMR didn't expect this to happen.
