Xavier pausing activities

[UConnKev]

 

[UConnKev]

 

[Dooooooomed]

Pretty impressive that they got in 7 games before the pause.

 

[NJHusky]

Pretty impressive that they got in 7 games before the pause.

I wonder if any team will make it through the entire season without taking a Covid break?

Also since our next scheduled game is Thursday can we play seton hall on Tuesday to try and catch up rather than waiting

 

[buddy]

I just don't understand how St Johns and Seton Hall can play today and Georgetown and Villanova can play, but UConn team aides/players keep getting infected. UConn was supposed to play St John's today and Georgetown on Sunday, but UConn had to cancel. Someone is doing something wrong at UConn in my opinion. I don't mind if the opposition has to cancel, but it seems like it is always UConn that is canceling. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm just pissed.

 

[UConn_Top_Dog]

Did anyone see the video of coach Travis Steele going into a packed bar to celebrate after the Cincy win?

 

[2north]

I just don't understand how St Johns and Seton Hall can play today and Georgetown and Villanova can play, but UConn team aides/players keep getting infected. UConn was supposed to play St John's today and Georgetown on Sunday, but UConn had to cancel. Someone is doing something wrong at UConn in my opinion. I don't mind if the opposition has to cancel, but it seems like it is always UConn that is canceling. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm just pissed.

The 2 games canceled in bubbleville were because of Vandy and NC State so...

 

[conn4>cuse1]

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm just pissed.

Everyone is a little bit of both right now. We were in for a great year of basketball.

 

[imno1]

I wonder if any team will make it through the entire season without taking a Covid break?

Also since our next scheduled game is Thursday can we play seton hall on Tuesday to try and catch up rather than waiting

I would bet on a team from Florida

 

[Edward Sargent]

Did anyone see the video of coach Travis Steele going into a packed bar to celebrate after the Cincy win?

Not a good look

 

[buddy]

The 2 games canceled in bubbleville were because of Vandy and NC State so...

We can expect that from those schools are they are in virus denier states. UConn supposedly follows the science and is missing now two games against long time rivals.

 

[HooperScooper]

Did anyone see the video of coach Travis Steele going into a packed bar to celebrate after the Cincy win?

Bars like that are open in Ohio? Yikes.

 

[BigFanCT]

Did anyone see the video of coach Travis Steele going into a packed bar to celebrate after the Cincy win?

A bigger deal needs to be made out of this by the media. I thought it was absolutely shocking to say the least. How irresponsible can you be. I hope this story gets pushed now that they are on pause.

 

[superjohn]

Bars like that are open in Ohio? Yikes.

Mobbed up bar I used to go to in Chicago isn't playing along.

Richard’s Bar Is Open For Business, And ‘Will Not Comply’ If City Tries To Close It, Sign Declares

RIVER WEST — Despite a statewide ban on indoor dining and drinking, a River West tavern is continuing to serve patrons inside and has put the city on

blockclubchicago.org

 

[Edward Sargent]

Bars like that are open in Ohio? Yikes.

They are open like that in a lot of states for example down here in Florida. In some states it was more important to keep the bars open than the schools!

 

[BParkDog]

Was at a TGI Fridays at the Miami airport awhile ago. Every table taken, every seat at the bar taken.

The very fundamental question that this is forcing us to ask and answer is:

How much can/should the at-risk population be able to force the not-so-much-at-risk population to take potentially preventative steps that will, in large part, only help the at-risk population?

The answer appears to substantially break down with where you are on the anarchy to statist continuum. The more you are a statist, meaning that you tend to think that the government is good, more government is better, government should be trusted, restriction of individual liberty to right wrongs is desirable, and the government is a good tool with which to cure many, if not most, societal ills, then you are going to be on the "one death is too many" side of the scale and you're more likely to think that forcing people to stay at home or wear potentially protective garments, or stand at certain distances is hunky dory.

Folks more on the smaller govt. side of the spectrum are going to feel the opposite, and are going to think - if you believe you're at risk, YOU stay home. YOU avoid contact with people. And so on.

I don't think either position is morally superior. This is, ultimately, a question of which you value more - individual liberty or public safety. Individual liberty is a bast---d of a thing, really, because it leads to bad results for some. Of course, it's a also a beautiful thing, because it has been so rare in governed societies.

There is a very real, very strong movement afoot in the U.S. to end free speech, under the premise that limiting some speech would be good for the public. That is, ultimately, going to be the same issue as this. Same spectrum. Many will argue that the good created by limiting speech will be worth the harm to individual liberty.

I think that side is successful, at some point relatively soon. I guess, ultimately, the message from the winning side will be, "cover your mouth, and watch what you say."

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will not end the call for masking et alia. There will always be some cases, and there will always be influenza, and there will always be the threat of some new bug.

 

[3rdbass]

Did anyone see the video of coach Travis Steele going into a packed bar to celebrate after the Cincy win?

What was he thinking going into that bar. Also, what was the money he gave for since he didn't drink anything. He was paying for a round of drinks? Also, can't he get a real mask to wear and not a neck gaiter which might do more harm than help.

 

[auror]

There is a very real, very strong movement afoot in the U.S. to end free speech, under the premise that limiting some speech would be good for the public. That is, ultimately, going to be the same issue as this. Same spectrum. Many will argue that the good created by limiting speech will be worth the harm to individual liberty.

I think that side is successful, at some point relatively soon. I guess, ultimately, the message from the winning side will be, "cover your mouth, and watch what you say."

There is no push to end free speech. Free speech is protection from governmental repercussions. There IS a push to promote public moral repercussions for hurtful speech. However, this is not new. You have been likely to get fired for saying the N word as a white person for decades. Saying something that someone disagrees with has always influenced how people view or respect you. The societal conflict is where do we draw the line as to what is publicly appropriate. It has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[UConn_Top_Dog]

What was he thinking going into that bar. Also, what was the money he gave for since he didn't drink anything. He was paying for a round of drinks?

From what I have been hearing, yes he went in there to pay for a round of drinks. Completely irresponsible of him to do. He is playing with fire.

 

[BParkDog]

There is no push to end free speech. Free speech is protection from governmental repercussions.

Of course there is. In fact, there's so much of a risk, many famous people signed on to the Harper's Letter, which, really, is a very grave warning that free speech is in danger.
The "public reprobation" and cancel culture to which you refer is not a governmental infringement, to be sure, but it certainly is a very loud, very clear harbinger of what is coming.
The current standard is that ALL speech is permissible as long as it does not incite, "imminent lawless action."

That standard will soon fall.

It will fall by way of "hate speech" laws, which are already in place in Europe. That is the moment at which free speech in the U.S. dies.

Unfortunately, protecting free speech means protecting the ugliest among us.

First, the extremists get banned for "hate" speech. Then, the definition of "hate" grows broader. Next, folks who are "deniers" and "conspiracy theorist" get banned. And so on.

It's starting. Under/over on the 1st limits on free speech? I'd say 2 years.

EDIT - but we had a 240 year run, and that's quite a thing.

 

[navery12]

What was he thinking going into that bar. Also, what was the money he gave for since he didn't drink anything. He was paying for a round of drinks?

Yeah he went in and gave the bar $2K so everyone could drink for free to celebrate the win

 

[3rdbass]

Yeah he went in and gave the bar $2K so everyone could drink for free to celebrate the win

Yeah, but still a very irresponsible act and with a neck gaiter. Ugh he surely had no concern for others.

 

[auror]

Of course there is. In fact, there's so much of a risk, many famous people signed on to the Harper's Letter, which, really, is a very grave warning that free speech is in danger.
The "public reprobation" and cancel culture to which you refer is not a governmental infringement, to be sure, but it certainly is a very loud, very clear harbinger of what is coming.
The current standard is that ALL speech is permissible as long as it does not incite, "imminent lawless action."

That standard will soon fall.

It will fall by way of "hate speech" laws, which are already in place in Europe. That is the moment at which free speech in the U.S. dies.

Unfortunately, protecting free speech means protecting the ugliest among us.

First, the extremists get banned for "hate" speech. Then, the definition of "hate" grows broader. Next, folks who are "deniers" and "conspiracy theorist" get banned. And so on.

It's starting. Under/over on the 1st limits on free speech? I'd say 2 years.

We have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. There will be no anti-speech bill. The standard cannot be superseded by a legislature. And if it is "within 2 years", the Supreme Court is +3 conservative at the moment. You can rest easy. I will gladly take the over on that bet.

The Harper's Letter again had nothing to do with free speech. There is a reason it did not include the phrase within.

 

[Edward Sargent]

Was at a TGI Fridays at the Miami airport awhile ago. Every table taken, every seat at the bar taken.

The very fundamental question that this is forcing us to ask and answer is:

How much can/should the at-risk population be able to force the not-so-much-at-risk population to take potentially preventative steps that will, in large part, only help the at-risk population?

The answer appears to substantially break down with where you are on the anarchy to statist continuum. The more you are a statist, meaning that you tend to think that the government is good, more government is better, government should be trusted, restriction of individual liberty to right wrongs is desirable, and the government is a good tool with which to cure many, if not most, societal ills, then you are going to be on the "one death is too many" side of the scale and you're more likely to think that forcing people to stay at home or wear potentially protective garments, or stand at certain distances is hunky dory.

Folks more on the smaller govt. side of the spectrum are going to feel the opposite, and are going to think - if you believe you're at risk, YOU stay home. YOU avoid contact with people. And so on.

I don't think either position is morally superior. This is, ultimately, a question of which you value more - individual liberty or public safety. Individual liberty is a bast---d of a thing, really, because it leads to bad results for some. Of course, it's a also a beautiful thing, because it has been so rare in governed societies.

There is a very real, very strong movement afoot in the U.S. to end free speech, under the premise that limiting some speech would be good for the public. That is, ultimately, going to be the same issue as this. Same spectrum. Many will argue that the good created by limiting speech will be worth the harm to individual liberty.

I think that side is successful, at some point relatively soon. I guess, ultimately, the message from the winning side will be, "cover your mouth, and watch what you say."

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will not end the call for masking et alia. There will always be some cases, and there will always be influenza, and there will always be the threat of some new bug.

I take your point, with the exception of free speech. I don't buy that we are concerned about free speech. Actually there is one person whose free speech should be taken away and he sits atop the dung heap in DC

 

[superjohn]

What was he thinking going into that bar. Also, what was the money he gave for since he didn't drink anything. He was paying for a round of drinks? Also, can't he get a real mask to wear and not a neck gaiter which might do more harm than help.

He went in and paid $2,000 in drinks for fans, he does it every season after beating Cincy.