Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Video of Racist Chant Results In Fraternity Closure
HughPickens.com writes The NYT reports that after a video was posted on YouTube that appeared to show members of the members Sigma Alpha Epsilon at University of Oklahoma singing a racist chant, the organization's board decided "with no mental reservation whatsoever that this chapter needed to be closed immediately." The video shows a group of young white people in formal wear riding a bus and singing a chant laden with antiblack slurs and at least one reference to lynching. A grinning young man wearing a tuxedo and standing in the aisle of the bus pumps his fist in the air as he chants, while a young woman seated nearby claps. The chant vows that African-Americans will "never" be allowed to join the campus chapter.
The nine-second video was uploaded to YouTube on Sunday by a student group, the Unheard Movement, that first identified the people in it as members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, although the group did not indicate how it obtained the video or when it was filmed. University president, David Boren, said in an emailed statement that the administration was also investigating the video. "I have just been informed of the video, which purports to show students to show students engaging in a racist chant. We are investigating to determine if the video involved OU students. If O.U. students are involved, this behavior will not be tolerated and will be addressed very quickly," said Boren. "This behavior is reprehensible and contrary to all of our values." Students marched on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Monday to protest the video.
The nine-second video was uploaded to YouTube on Sunday by a student group, the Unheard Movement, that first identified the people in it as members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, although the group did not indicate how it obtained the video or when it was filmed. University president, David Boren, said in an emailed statement that the administration was also investigating the video. "I have just been informed of the video, which purports to show students to show students engaging in a racist chant. We are investigating to determine if the video involved OU students. If O.U. students are involved, this behavior will not be tolerated and will be addressed very quickly," said Boren. "This behavior is reprehensible and contrary to all of our values." Students marched on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Monday to protest the video.
SigEps are racists. Wait, frats in general are racists. No shit, Sherlock. PKA on my campus was 100% Jewish. If you weren't Jewish, you weren't getting in. Some were all white. Some all black. The entirety of the greek system is racism and sexism in action. Give me a break with your feigned outrage.
Seems like you can't be a racist bigot anymore without someone taping what you say and posting it online. How are good old boys clubs supposed to survive in the new millennium? Are we going to have more places demanding people surrender their cellphones before entering? Between this and dashcams and cop cameras it's getting really hard to get away with being a total shithead anymore. We're going to have to see some senators step up and propose legislation to protect the children and good old fashion values soon or it will be too late.
I read the internet for the articles.
The guys were racist, they got the hammer of justice thrown at them. They suffered consequences and will have to deal with and learn from them. Case closed.
Not all men are now magically racist, nor college students, nor frats. The system doesn't need to change. Everything worked as intended.
Personally, I don't think we need to make every event that happens into some huge debate over whether our culture is circling the drain and chanting, "There needs to be a law!".
That's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, and I hope you have a good day.
Or creating strawmen, right?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Sunday night on the Row.
http://www.sae.net/home/pages/news/news---media-statements---fraternity-leadership-closes-chapter-at-university-of-oklahoma
A public university does not have to support all forms of speech. When you go to that school you typically sign a document stating you will limit your behavious to a set appropriate of being in that institution, a code of conduct, and that is legally enforceable. You could say that like the military you sign away some of your rights when you go the school for the duration of time you are in the school.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I'm not aware of other races - in this country - that discriminate because they believe they're "superior" to those with skin different skin color, using skin color as the primary reason for believing they're superior. These people certainly don't act superior.
Is this News for Nerds?
As with "superior" soy sauce, it doesn't mean it is better, just that it fermented longer. You can tell the difference with just your nose.
I'm pretty sure SAE is bad from the top down:
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I guess the proto-Republicans don't fall far from their daddy's apple tree.
Remind me again which party was the one perpetuating segregation and doing everything possible at the legislative and executive level in the south to prevent the progress of the civil rights movement? Oh, right, it was democrats. Remind me again which movement was championing mandatory sterilization of inferior women, eugenics, and other charming Master Race type strategies? Oh, right, it was the founding Progressives - a group that to this day is absolutely obsessed with labeling people, keeping minorities in low-class government dependency, and anxious at every turn to lock down free speech when people don't agree with them.
The inheritors of those groups - contemporary Democrats and Progressives - haven't really changed their outlook a bit. They're entirely about thinking the least of minorities, and proclaiming their own elites as the group best suited to tend to them, like zoo animals, through the establishment and maintenance of an elaborate nanny state that knows best how to nurse them along. It was odious from the beginning, and still is. Jackass frat boys deserve the scorn they earn. Truly insidious left power mongers deserve a lot worse for the decades of misery they're proud to perpetuate.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oklahoma is "Midwest" not "South.
You don't have to be a True Scotsman to build a perfect strawman, but the Celts did basically invent it, and none of this modern stuff compares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Oh, wait, oops, the story was just a Straw Man.
In other news, strictly black-only frats and sororities have all also been disbanded for being racially exclusive, even when they have new pledges march around in militant formations chanting Nation Of Islam sayings and trying to intimidate white students on campus. Oops! That hasn't happened, and never will. Funny about that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And also because the 'substance' requires living in an alternative reality bubble that takes on a whole set of initial assumptions which can not be challenged.
Not as an open matter of policy though.
News for nerds...
you havent looked hard enough. there are people from all groups who do believe such nonsense
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
As a millenial I dont find racism offensive, I find it contemptuous. it serves as reminder that a sizeable minority of americans willfully refuse to be a part of modern society. That theyre given a voice, taken seriously and sincerely at their word, and that they participate in my government and interact with my society is infuriating. that despite the best efforts of millions, there will always without question be a remainder of those who would rather cling tenaciously to racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia than get onboard and tackle real issues and challenges is a absurd to no end. You can live for yourself today, or you can work together to build a brighter and better tomorrow for everyone.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over
Considering the Scots had yet to invade England when Caeser wrote his commentaries, I'm afraid your straw man is no true Scotsman.
As awful as the language is, Univ. of Oklahoma is a public university. If they're considering expelling the students, wouldn't that be a first amendment violation? Assuming they are going to be expelled.
Okay, so maybe the school has a certain policy to abide by, and maybe you think that's okay. (Not necessarily replying to the poster above.)
That by agreeing to the policy, it is justifiable to expel someone over racist speech because it violates their policy.
What if said policy were to contain a prohibiting not just on discrimination, but also complaint speech against the school?
What if a student were to make complaints about school policies, conduct, whatever? Maybe you don't like their meal plans, and complain about it. Would it be justifiable to expel a student over that then?
If it's a public university, the college should have to respect free speech. No matter how distasteful the speech is.
However, losing their frat status is for the best since that's a private organization punishing their members.
Yes, absolutely, we have freedom of speech, and within certain limits you are allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.
However, be aware that this does not free you from consequences. If you want to say racist things, go ahead, but you will suffer the indignation and general displeasure of those that disagree with you, and this WILL lead to direct and indirect consequences.
If you don't want to face those consequences, then maybe instead of blindly joining in, you should think before you act.
I feel no remorse in the loss of an obviously racist bunch from the Greek system. Good riddance.
So, again, here's you refusing to even dabble in a discussion about the points raised, and simply responding with the classically lazy left ad hominem. So predictable.
Let's try again. Would you say that, as mentioned above, black culture in the US has a different license to rant and chant racist nonsense without the same consequences as other groups? Yes or no. Do you concede that there is a double standard, or will you just say Fox! Fox! Fox! in order to avoid addressing that unfortunate reality?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
not all white men are the heads of companies, running Fortune 500 companies, congressional officials, police chiefs, etc.
But very few non-white, non-men are.
That's why. It's not racism because when a black person calls you names to hurt your feelings, they also don't have the weight of systemic racial biases behind it. They call you names and that's it.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
While true, you also see those that think that people of certain skin colors are inferior, or their own color is a chosen color.
Let's face the truth no matter their color racists are dick's.
If there is one thing on the planet we could all live without it would be the racists of all colors.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Funny how few people refuse to see it that way though.
It's a shame, it really is.
If more people thought this way perhaps there would be a greater sense of urgency to get off the gov payroll.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
You are apparently ignorant of the fact those so called southern democrats left the party and became the southern republicans that we know today, which have as much to do with lincoln as modern democrats have to do with the 60s.
The weird idea that Celts were limited to Scotland is very modern. The Celts building the wicker men, including both the ones Caesar saw, and the ones he made up, were all from much farther south than Scotland. And the Scots wouldn't cross over from Ireland for another millennia.
I'll give you a hint, though: a Scot is a type of Celt. A Celt is not a type of Scot. And not necessarily a Scotsman, either.
I kind of doubt the racist blacks (so-called "rap artists", et al) would be welcome on the Ohio University campus either. Did I miss the press release that states otherwise?
Hey, certain posters here. Hate speech is not covered by the First Amendment. "Hang em from a tree", is emphatically not covered, get off you Free Speech high horse.
If the premise is false then the conclusion is most likely false. Similarly, if the premise is exclusionary then the conclusion will also be exclusionary. I do realize that "white males" are the favorite punching bag for claims of discrimination, but the point is that discrimination is everywhere and employed by all sorts of people. Women hating on men, blacks hating on whites, Christians hating on Muslims, Muslims hating on non-Muslims, etc.. etc..
The problem is exacerbated by media who keeps issues in the spotlights, occasionally even inventing them. This is one of many ways that the powerful remain in power.. by making us bicker with each other.
If you doubt that discrimination is universal then visit a place like Saudi Arabia carrying a Bible and wearing a cross. Go to Harlem, Detroit, Compton, etc.. if you are white. Tell just about anyone that you are Jewish if you are. That we make a big deal of these differences 2,500 years after we should know better is a different issue (referring to Plato's "The Republic").
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
because job training programs cost money and are SOSHALISM
Just from what's in the another post I read, I'd say that they were not "merely" racist, but threatening. I mean, that is the South, home to the KKK that murdered a hell of a lot for the "crime" of being black. That makes them dangerous.
And, of course, it's the kind of crap I'd expect from the majority of Greeks - classiism, racism, you-have-to-be-worth-money-to-get-in.... They've never had much of a rep beyond party, drinking, etc, and this goes back to my first time in college, long before most of you were born.
I see no reason to make Greeks part of the official college landscape. Most of 'em have nothing to do with actual learning... which is, allegedly, what you're paying that money for.
mark
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you use terms like "lazy left" I certainly don't. But as for your argument. it might be more socially accepted for blacks to spout racist nonsense, but I'm willing to bargain that they are subject to more racism than whites are on a daily basis. Would you agree..? Yes or No. or are you just going to chant "lazy left" again.
Also, don't forget "start a fire for a man, keep him warm for the night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!"
Why are you taking offense?! He didn't say anything negative about Fox did he?
Uh, yeah, I know, I was k... err... it was a j... umm... I gotta go.
Right. Because chanting "you can hang them from a tree" is more or less equivalent to calling a white person a cracker.
Note, the above is sarcasm, which usually doesn't come through on the internet.
Why are you taking offense?! He didn't say anything negative about Fox did he?
I'm not taking offense, I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised." i.e. taking offense.
This is also a university, not society at large. As such there can be different rules on speech. A black fraternity doing the same thing would not get away with it on any campus.
They vowed that African-Americans will "never" be allowed to join the campus chapter, and they stayed true to that vow by getting the chapter closed down.
Not that for a second I condone such attittudes, just saying that from a purely literalist standpoint, they certainly weren't lying.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And this is news for nerds...how? Isn't there an SJW blog this could be posted to instead?
when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
Um. Apparently not.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Careful, facts are tricky things...
People get rather testy when you challenge them with the actual facts....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The problem is that part of the way these sorts of organizations create their fake sense of community is by engaging recruits in something anti-social, so as to sever bonds with the larger community and leave them with only their new group as a place that will accept them. Generally this is done symbolically or at worst by a frivolous crime like trespass or graffiti-writing.
A legitimate question is whether these people were expressing their own political views (which is nonetheless their right) or merely participating in what is more or less a theatrical production. It's still offensive and demonstrating poor judgment, but only so much should be read into it.
Of course, if a fraternity is closed - no big loss.
The scariest part of this, to me, is the sheer number of people, who chose to post here anonymously...
Clearly, the fear of being prosecuted for thought-crimes is wide-spread... Among Whites.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Everybody has slaves in their ancestry.
Very very few have met any former slaves, Perhaps a very old African American met a very old former slave long ago.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hey, Below the Mason Dixon Line.. Southern state...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Black racism is "socially accepted." Some drunk white dude says the N word under his breath, and the AG, President, race-baiting Sharpton and Jackson shows up, and the entire white population is put in the same bucket as a drunk frat boy.
Blacks calling whites crackers, making fun of them in rap music, ostracizing and subjecting whites to crime in "their" neighborhoods and constantly falsely accusing whites as being racists and "the man" and keeping them down,etc.
Dude, black fatigue. Im sick of it. And I'm sick of the horrible near totality of racism blacks have for whites and nobody calls them on it. Black racism and black racketeering to milk the system AND keep the majority of blacks on the modern welfare plantation is more of a policy of those the blacks vote for and their own broken fatherless homes and broken crime-ridden graffiti-ridden communities than anything whites do.
Blacks kill more blacks by far than whites.
You're a fool.
When any black person can make a phone call to the Police, give them a _description_ of a generic white person, and put innocent white lives at risk, talk me to death about the social acceptance of black racism. When enough blacks are in positions of management to deny white people opportunities because they feel that for arbitrary reasons, they just don't fit in, talk me to death about the social acceptance of black racism. When white people feel compelled to alter their natural appearance chemically or otherwise to "appear acceptable" or otherwise "make it in a corporate America", talk me to death about the acceptance of black racism.
The bottom line is despite supposedly being "equal" and ENTITLED TO "equal treatment under the law" SO SAYETH the CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES, black survival in America is STILL largely dependent upon the comfort level whites have with them. While many whites today may not be the racists that their ancestors living A MERE GENERATION AGO were (and make no mistake there remain plenty of whites who ARE EVERY BIT the racists their ancestors were), THIS ESSENTIAL FACT is as true today as it was during SLAVERY.
>>>>Blacks kill more blacks by far than whites.
To assert that blacks kill more blacks by far than whites is meaningless and stupid due to the fact that people commit crimes where they LIVE. White people kill more of each other by far than blacks kill whites... and in China, Chinese people kill more of each other by far than whites OR blacks kill Chinese. That's the easy observation made by people who ride the short bus and watch Faux News. They're also typically the same people who claim to want a small government with a BIG MILITARY empowered to make laws governing the _social_ behavior of everyone else.
I'll say this, and say it daring anyone to challenge it:
Black people in America are amongst THE MOST PEACEFUL PEOPLE within its borders.
How can I say that? Because if white people were subjected to a TINY FRACTION of the bullsh*t they've subjected black people to OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND CONTINUING TO THIS VERY DAY, they'd have burned this country to the ground a long time ago. America itself was essentially founded over a TAX DISPUTE, just imagine if the English had been forcing the colonists to work from sun-up to sun-down for free while denying them their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS?
YET AND STILL, despite the slight, the wrong, or the indignity, BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT PEACEFUL PROTEST. Al Sharpton comes to your town to _DISCUSS_ HIS GRIEVANCES. Black people are ALWAYS talking about DEMONSTRATING PEACEFULLY... and WHY NOT? IN AMERICA, BLACK PEOPLE IMPORTED THE CONCEPT OF PEACEFUL PROTEST. They looked to Ghandi and thought: GREAT IDEA! In contrast, what happens when white people feel slighted? THEY ARE USUALLY THE FIRST TO REACH FOR THEIR GUNS, to SING THE PRAISES OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT, and to threaten violence against this government for supposedly infringing upon their freedom (mainly to be assh*les to everyon
Wrong. Your First Amendment rights cannot be abridged by contract. If you were a black person on that bus at the time of the chanting, and you felt threatened, then you, and only you, have any right what-so-ever to call it "hate speech".
The university may have room to close their frat house, if it is, or is on, university property. The national chapter ("HQ") can revoke their charter. But otherwise, the university has no legal standing to take any punitive actions towards the people in the video. (the volume of stupid demonstrated by the video is plenty. remember, the internet forgets nothing.)
Right there is an example, ladies and gentlemen, of how subsidies destroy freedom.
While it is hard to disagree with pla above, consider the following hypothetical example... Everybody is taxed at 100% — with everything they need available to them for "free" in exchange. You can not afford anything on your own, but you don't need to — because everything you could possibly want is provided to you.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, such Communist ideal is achievable in principle... Aren't you now "supported" in everything you receive? And can the government not "choose not to support" you because of your racism or any other thought-crimes?
Back to fraternities — why are they supported by colleges to begin with? Why can't students save on tuition, if they don't want to join such a group? One can be forgiven for suspecting, colleges want to hook them on subsidies so as to be able to control them later...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Probably not a popular stance right now, but I break it out every time I see one of these sorts of issues popup.
Statistically - at least when I did a decade plus search for rape convictions after the UVA scandal - it's much more dangerous to be in a dorm room or student apartment than in a fraternity house or participate in a fraternity event. The same appears to be true for assault. It's harder to come up with numbers for alcohol poisoning and death; those are rarely disclosed except in the context of a party held by an organization, be it fraternity, sports team, or other.
That is, fraternities have a lower incident rate than the norm. These acts happen in fraternties less often than in the general student body. Not that they don't happen, but rather, that they happen less. This is not just raw numbers either, but even per-capita, and still many orders of magnitude different.
I'm guessing the same goes for racism, but I have no way to get numbers on that.
Now a days, when the threat of suspension, dissolution, or expulsion hangs over their heads for activities that would result in little more than an eye roll and a head shake if a non-organization member did it, these greek orgs are especially careful. There's their parent organization - made up of graduate members - telling them what to do or be penalized, fined, or dissolved. There's the greek council, watching everything they do, ready to cut an org out as soon as there's even the merest hint of scandal, to save themselves. There's over 40 years of tv shows and movies continually painting fraternities as the bad guys, the despicable and snooty handsome jock rich kids for our hero underdogs to fight, so they're constantly fighting an uphill battle.
That's why the parent organization dissolved that chapter even before names came out. It's zero tolerance in an apparent fight to survive.
Those of you who have not actually tried to examine fraternities, for good or ill, and only accept what talking heads state as truth won't actually realize that they're so strictly internally policed.
In fact, the only reason we're calling it a 'scandal' and it appears in the public eye is because an organization makes up a larger target than an individual. The 2006 Duke rape case was nothing, when it was a bunch of guys in a privately rented house, but when they found out that it was 'the entire duke lacrosse team had gang-raped a minority!' then it was made high-profile and public.
Make sure to treat each event like this like you should every other piece of information that comes at you. Reserve judgement, investigate, educate yourself on the context, and try not to be a bigot and generalize. These chumps might be racist jacklegs, but they're a small percentage.
Then it's someone else's problem.
When my kid breaks your window playing baseball you come and talk to me. When some other kid does you don't. That's all pretty fucking basic.
... at Sigma Alpha Epsilon at University of Oklahoma.
You bitches are out.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Maybe you should read what the constitution actually says. "Congress shall make no law..."
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
On thing is for certain: The people in the video are quite safe from charges of thought crime.
I think we can safely say there was damn little intelligent thought happening there.
Clubs are held to a higher standard. The general student body can get away with a whole lot. You can go and have a racist rant out in public every day and so long as you aren't disruptive, threatening, etc then they can't do anything, they have to let you stay and if a teacher were to retaliate grade wise they could get in trouble. However clubs, like frats, have additional rules imposed on them if they wish to remain school recognized clubs. The school doesn't have to allow them, so they can choose what additional restrictions they face.
Now you are free to have a club not recognized by the campus, but then you won't be able to use campus facilities, participate in official campus events, and so on.
The university gets federal funding, no?
Your move. ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The grandparent's post made no statements about the first amendment. He stated an argument that higher education should be about growing knowledge and that free speech is an essential component of it.
He actually made a rather compelling argument that suppressing that speech may be more harmful than refuting it. After all, if willingness to challenge fundamental axioms of knowledge isn't allowed in a college setting, then where would it be?
Racism is incredibly harmful. Suppression of ideas is harmful. The 1st protects our ideas and speech from congress, and the 14th protects us from racism.
We the people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"--the 1st amendment is not required for the right of free speech to exist.
-=Lothsahn=-
Firstly, very few people are seriously framing this as a crime. Much less a hate-crime. This is a strawman, pure and simple.
Secondly, a lot of the outrage is from the fact that this is a campus related organization. The idea is that these students should be held to a higher standard than "gansta rappers".
Maybe we should wait for the charges to be filed before making this argument. As for expulsion, this will depend on the university's bylaws and code of conduct. I expect these will be reviewed.
Kids of all races get expelled for much less, I'm sure.
In other news, strictly black-only frats and sororities have all also been disbanded for being racially exclusive.
Probably; one opinion piece and a news article indicate that such organizations don't exist.
So... what's your view on the Voting Rights Act being recently gutted and the overnight movement towards voter suppression in several republican states?
Separately, I don't think either party is (inherently) racist. I think they simply pander to different socio-economic demographics. However, in certain sections of the country, I do think that republicans hang a big, loud "you're not welcome here" sign for anyone they don't see as a potential constituent.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Fuck you and your bigoted attitude.
Some cunt uses racist language at me, he's getting called on it, and I don't give a flying fuck what colour his skin is.
Some sexist arsehole discriminates against me based on their perception of my gender, same fucking thing.
I haven't enslaved anybody. I haven't refused to promote anybody. I haven't been magically given a fucking ferrari and a penthouse full of hookers. I haven't had some weird fucked up privilege that everybody seems to think they deserve.
So fuck you and fuck the other bigots. Don't be a racist cunt, whatever fucking colour you are.
The place is redneck as fuck and only wishes it could be Texas. Yes, yes it is.
When white people feel compelled to alter their natural appearance chemically or otherwise to "appear acceptable" or otherwise "make it in a corporate America", talk me to death about the acceptance of black racism.
Clearly you know fuck all about being white then. You think I _want_ to wear this fucking suit, have this fucking haircut? Have you seen the shit people go through if they have a tattoo? Do you realise that every fucking woman in Manchester wears fake tan because otherwise they're too fucking white?
make no mistake there remain plenty of whites who ARE EVERY BIT the racists their ancestors were
Sadly this is true. Equally sad is how fucking racist so many non-white Amercians are too. Bigotry does not excuse bigotry.
Black people in America are amongst THE MOST PEACEFUL PEOPLE within its borders.
Crime statistics do not agree with you, even after adjusting for location.
Adjusting for wealth, possibly, and skin colour is not the determining factor, but the correlation is absolutely fucking there.
, just imagine if the English had been forcing the colonists to work from sun-up to sun-down for free while denying them their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS?
So who has made you, your siblings, your parents or your friends work from sun-up to sun-down for free, with or without basic human rights? Just that, my ancestors were enslaved by the Romans, and then by the Vikings, and then by Barbary Pirates, and I'm not using any of that as an excuse for racism or bigotry.
BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT PEACEFUL PROTEST
You seem to be entirely disregarding entire subcultures across America. See a post above for some example song lyrics that don't seem to gel with your hypothesis.
is it black people that have a history of hanging white people by their necks from trees or white people who have a history of hanging black people by their necks from trees?
Look you racist fuck, I haven't hung anybody from a tree. Stop stereotyping based on race you bigoted twat.
(Apply that response to your other inane unnecessary bullshit examples - and do try not to pretend that this is all one-way traffic)
Black people have endured and continue to endure all of this NONSENSE and yet at their angriest, they typically want to MARCH about it. No talk about the 2nd amendment, NO talk about shooting their oppressors in the name of FREEDOM. No news-er-uh propaganda channel dedicated to spurring them on..
I fail miserably to see how this excuses racism. You are not making a valid point. You are not justifying the bigoted bullshit you're spouting.
The majority of people using social programs? White people. There are far more whites in the trailer park using food stamps than blacks in the ghetto, and far more trailer parks than ghettos.
There are far more white people than black people in America, it's hardly surprising that there are more of them in a given social strata.
Do the same comparison on a percentage population basis by race, see if you get the same results.
Even then, don't be using this to justify racism. Shit, a lot of deprived black neighbourhoods consider an attempt to get educated and break the cycle of poverty a betrayal and something to mock. Rail against that primitive attitude if you want to do something useful.
The primary beneficiary of affirmative action programs? White women. White women have benefitted far more from "the system" than all other minorities put together.
Affirmative action is discrimination and should be banned. I fucking hate it, and if you think white women gain the most from it, trust me, white men lose the fucking most from it. It's actually legal to discriminate against white men and you think black people have the problems?!
Black racism? THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? Really? Seriously? Kill yourself.
No. I'd rather kill the racist. But save me the bother, you live in a country with a high incidence of self-inflicted firearm injuries, be my guest.
African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs.
Interesting historical facts which I accept on face value, but then you fuck it up by claiming you can read the minds of blacks.
Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
My first child, now 35, was technically illegitimate. I ask you the same question I asked my parents in 1979 - Why is that a problem?
Every political party has its racists.
You should have stopped there, the rest of your post is just a twisted apology for your own political party.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No, but you are the beneficiary of systemic racism, sexism and depending if you're openly queer or not, homo and/or transphobia.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Whilst I dont agree with the sentiment of these morons...There are also fraternities that happily publicise themseves as being for African Americans only, yet somehow no-one seems at all bothered by their existence.
These clowns saying black people will never join their frat is racist, but pretty much just the same shoe on the other foot.
Racism won't ever go away until we end the whole idea that any organisation can legally and more importantly, morally exist and only cater to one race (so by extension exclude others). The perceived relative social status of any race is should not ever trump racism.
Until we change our social values to make it unacceptable for single-race organsations to exist at all (no matter how well-intended they are, the racial divide is being constaly reinforced by their very existence and racism won't ever be allowed to go away.
Media loves highlighting incidents of racism because they know like bugs to porch lights everyone rewards them by taking the bait.
Good plane crashes, train crashes, religious controversy, social controversy and fear... they know everyone's buttons and they constantly push them without regard for the aggregate consequences.
Some jackass made some loopy video .. so fucking what? Why is anyone bothering to report this? A lot of truly fucked up things happen all the time but you can count on mass media to milk bullshit for every last viewer its worth.
Systemic racism? That'll be why every company I work for prefers to employ people from the Indian subcontinent.
Systemic sexism? It's legal in this country to discriminate against men, the courts give men harsher sentences for the same crimes, school teachers give boys lower marks for the same work, men die younger, men work longer hours, the government spends less on male healthcare.. you want me to fucking continue or are you going to start bleating about this mythical 'male privilege' that allegedly exists?
As someone that has been bullied for being perceived as 'queer' and mocked for being trans, I can confirm that I've never seen anybody penalised by public bodies, employers or any of my friends for being anything other than straight.
So no, I haven't been the beneficiary. I've grown up in a working class family wearing second hand clothes as a constant stranger due to moving around too often, so don't be giving me any fucking privilege or systemic benefit bullshit.
"I'm making an observation about yet another person's lazy deflection and ad hominem rhetoric used to avoid addressing the actual issues being raised." i.e. taking offense.
What? You consider pointing out the truth to be "taking offense?" I supposed it's possible you may have your own personal feelings wounded by talking about the substance of the matter, but it's more likely you're using all of your projected umbrage to continue, again, to avoid actually talking about the matter at hand. Aren't you even a little embarassed?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Hilarious. Really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Who's stopping you? It's here.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why is that a problem?
Because children raised by single parents or by parents that have to spread their attention across multiple households where they've fathered multiple children are at a huge disadvantage. They are far more likely to wind up neglecting school, falling into troublesome social circles, and becoming caught up in crime and substance abuse. Don't pretend for a second that you don't understand that reality.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's really not midwestern. Geographically it's not in the old Confederacy but culturally it is.
Actually, it is in the old Confederacy. the South offered a deal to the indians to join their side and the last Confederate general to surrender was the Cherokee chief Stand Watie who was leading a Cherokee force.
I'm a white guy.
I wasn't bothered by black people when I was a kid, and I used to hang out and smoke
pot with a couple of black guys who were buddies. We never once thought about race,
only about what we could do to have fun.
As the years passed, I was robbed by blacks four different times and mugged by blacks once.
These events changed how I view black people I don't already know. If you don't like that
it's tough shit for you. If you want to try to repress my opinions, you'd better be ready for a disappointment,
because I think what I think now based on life experience. I avoid blacks now, because life experience
has taught me this is a good strategy for avoiding problems. I know that all blacks are not muggers or thieves,
but I also know that if I avoid all of them I WILL avoid the subset of blacks who ARE muggers or thieves.
Some call that prejudice, I call it foreknowledge and intelligent strategy. If you don't like that, that's YOUR
problem.
As an aside, I detest fraternities and I detest the entire Greek system in general, but that has more to
do with me detesting cliques than anything else.
"Woe is me, I, a white man, have to wear a suit and have a dumb haircut."
Clearly it is white people who are the real victims here.
It's really not midwestern. Geographically it's not in the old Confederacy but culturally it is.
Sorry to do two different posts, but I'd rather not reply to an AC who is just trolling.
It really depends on who you ask and in what context you are talking about. Growing up in OK, we called ourself the "Midwest" which colloquially meant the great plains states. That a bunch of Eastern Yankees like Indiana would call themselves midwesterners really threw me for a long time. Still, depending who and how the nation of states is divided up, they are in many cases, and OK is part of the South. The US Census puts OK in the South. Others put it in the South West, Midwest, Great Plains, or some other grouping, usually using South.
Right on.
Also:
There's more white people on welfare than there are black people alive. Yet when people talk about welfare queens and lazy fucks and say that's the reason we need to cut back on welfare, they point to black people. Then these anti-welfare guys get elected, make cuts, and their own constituency suffers because guess what? Most people on welfare are in conservative areas. Most people on welfare are white, and even in percentage terms, blacks beat them by just a couple percentage points.
Yup, those fools in Norman sure did have the weight of the entire system behind them!
As another queer trans white person - you're totally and completely wrong.
I'm not sure how you think that your anecdotal experience with lack of discrimination for being queer invalidates centuries of racism and oppression, but you need to stay in your lane. Don't talk about shit you don't know about - you're an embarrassment.
No but they pay money for people to say it on stage and call it entertainment.
In other words, they're exactly like the Democrats. Try being a Christian...utter hostility unless you're the kind of Rev. Wright Christian.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Is that treally true (not the military part)? If a public university can make you give up rights to attend it, can the same government make you give up rights to receive welfare payments? Let's try this out.
According to you, if I attend a public university and I am not on a full ride scholarship then I am paying at least a portion of my own way (or find a sponsor such as a parent or loan guarantor) and but the state still has the legal right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about black people.
Now the tough question: If I am receiving welfare assistance from that very same government, does the state also retain the right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about politicians or republicans or black people or white people?
If the answer is not the same to both questions, please explain why. Why is one form of state assistance different in this regard (1st amendment) than another?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One more fact: Prior to WWII, the army was somewhat integrated and FDR (a God to the left) helped segregate it.
Fact: Lyndon B. Johnson routinely called blacks niggers and was always reminding them to stay in their place. LBJ is not really ancient history.
Oh no, they can be racist; jut not sexist.
Obviously you don't understand modern society. If someone that looks vaguely similar to your pale-skinned child breaks my window, i come talk to you and every other parent of pale-skinned children. However, I my darker-skinned child breaks your window, you don't come to me; you go talk the other parents of pale-skinned children and assess why you collectively pushed my child into that behavior.
I hear that quite a lot. But no one can name any prominent ones to do so. I do know Senator Byrd never thought of becoming a republican.
Can you list some of these democrats in the south fighting all this equality and desegregation stuff who switched to the republicans?
College is supposed to be a place where all viewpoints and ideas are explored - even the ugly and stupid ones.
Since when did cat calls from the frat house become an intellectually rigorous exploration of ideas good and bad?
By kicking out the frat charter, you only drive the problem deeper underground... and where is the frickin' benefit in doing that among a body of kids that are going to be naturally rebellious in the first place?
More naturally conformist than rebellious would be closer to the truth.
The geek conflates freedom of speech with anonymity and freedom from all restraints. But the roots of a traditional liberal arts education have always been openness, inclusion and civility.
You stand your ground and you stand exposed.
No hiding behind the bed sheets of the KKK, the screen name or the keyboard. It takes guts to do that. The kind that were celebrated in Selma this past week.
Check your required viewing materials, you will find, 'revenge of the nerds' at the top of the list. We are an oppressed minority who will always be marginalized by society and disrespected as a group.
that was irony in case you missed it....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Any form of discipline against the students would be illegal.
That may qualify as the dumbest comment I've ever read on /. and, considering the competition, that's quite an accomplishment.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Have you seen the shit people go through if they have a tattoo?
what, do they get treated like minorities?
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
Yes, but--If it looks like a fox, walks like a fox, and barks like a fox... It's not at all unreasonable to conclude that we're talking about a fox.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Your first "example" is actually lifted from a parody originally performed by Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live in 1982. I saw it the first time it ran.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Which is another way to STILL skip talking about the actual subject matter. Fox! Fox! Fox! Anything but the topic at hand! Fox! FOX FOX FOX!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm not homosexual, and I don't use the term queer - the ignorant fucks bullying me did.
I'm sure that prejudice and discrimination are out there but I've still never seen anti-lgbt policies at any company, or government organisation. I have seen sexist anti-male ones but no racist ones.
You know why? Because this society doesn't tolerate bigotry (except sadly feminist misandry) and although there are idiots everywhere they come in all races, genders and gender preferences. Nobody gets a free ride through life so stop being a previous snowflake and don't accept bigotry where it still exists - no matter who it's from.
Strom Thurmond is by far the most famous. Some other names would be Jesse Helms and Trent Lott.
But yes, the direct switching of Dixiecrats is overstated. What happened with GOP wasn't so much that it was flooded by southern ex-Democrats, but rather that it saw a niche that aligned closer with their base conservative platform, and filled it with new people. The whole "Southern strategy" thing.
http://livecam.com/cam/ncmoney... http://ncmoneymakesmec.cam.com...
The GOP (other than small enclaves such as frat houses) is demographically doomed. Much like Fox News, their largest core group is rapidly graying and not being replaced at a high enough rate. In the long run even abject, rapacious greed isn't enough to keep them as a viable party. But they are not going quietly, screaming racist and misogynist epithets as they rapidly slide into oblivion.
"It's not racism because when a black person calls you names to hurt your feelings"
Bullshit. It's socially accepted racism.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
"When enough blacks are in positions of management to deny white people opportunities because they feel that for arbitrary reasons, they just don't fit in, talk me to death about the social acceptance of black racism"
Have a look at most of the films that are for black people and by black people and have at most the token white in them.
Justice? Fair?
Whatever - it's still racism.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Agreed. As a corollary to that point, why are we not allowed to WATCH the video and judge for ourselves?
You are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I covered this before. Half of your "facts" are wrong.
They absolutely did switch over racism.
You ignore and leave out many salient facts of history in order to make a deceptive point based on the names of the parties, while ignoring actual history and what the parties actually stood for..
Back then, it was the Radical Republicans who were the liberals.
It was the Democrats who were the conservatives, who resisted change and progress.
That is the script that got flipped in between the 1860's and the 1960's.
And no, Republicans didn't lead the charge in the 1960's: Opposition to civil rights was broken down along geographical lines, not political, with nearly all votes against the Civil Rights act coming from Southern congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, and all support from non-southern delegates, regardless of party.
It's also worth noting that the Dixiecrats were not Democrats. They were a separate political party, who left the Democratic party precisely because of it's support to Civil Rights, and their opposition to them. It was the last majorly successful third party this nation has seen. Again note: the Dixiecrats were conservative in nature, not liberal, which is why it's not sufficient, and even deceptive, to toss around the party names, while ignoring what they stood for at different points in history, and how they changed.
And it was following Nixon's Southern Strategy the overwhelming majority of southern Democrats and Dixiecrats, again a generally far more conservative demographic of people than democrats in the rest of the country, became Republicans.
And then about halfway through your post switched from deceptive "facts" to outright racist garbage.
So no, sorry, you're not insightful.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The only spot in OK that could realistically be described as *culturally* Confederate is the southeast corner of the state. As an Oklahoman you'd be aware of that.
Please, I'm an Okie. I've gone West never to return. OK, is as confederate as Texas. They're pretty much the same except nothing is big is OK.
Those "reasonable steps" are being used to fix a problem with no-known documented instances or impact.
What is known, and has been admitted, is that those steps tend to reduce the ability and convenience to vote for the young, and for minorities - thus resulting in voter fraud itself. Combine that with rampant redistricting and you've arrived at the new 1963.
Here's the real deal: Having a birth certificate, driver's license, or SSN isn't a requirement to be an American. But it (along with a fee and a day of your time, every few years) is to get an ID or driver's license in these same states.
Virginia, for example, is at the front of the line in rolling-out an ID requirement to vote. That's a $10 fee every 5 years. "Reasonable", yes. But not *necessary*. And certainly *not* required by the constitution. What if the fee crept up? What if you could only get one between the hours of 11AM and 1PM? ...not counting lunchtime? How far does it have to go before this smells like a poll-tax?
You're just parroting a problem that you've been told by Fox News is rampant. It doesn't exist. If you want to find voter fraud - look no further than at just about every state governor and legislature - it's where the problem has always been, always will be. Political power's #1 priority is, and always was, maintaining and strengthening that power
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
nobody in my family was ever property.
If your family is descended from Europe, which is probably is. And wasn't Roman then you can all but guarantee that at some point in time some member or members of your family were property. Slavery wasn't invented for blacks and it certainly isn't gone from this world.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Black racism? THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? Really? Seriously? Kill yourself.
Ohhhhhh, so close.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I have prejudice in my views. Hopefully less in my actions.
Where I consciously notice it, I challenge myself. I'm not really sensing it in what I wrote though, sorry.
I'm also arguing very strongly that racism is bad, and don't do it, and definitely don't be ironic and pretend that racism is ok if you're a certain race, because that's both ignorant and bigoted.
Maybe that's something on which we can agree?
Google "map shows most racist people on earth";
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Casteism
Parent was a self-pitying white person who's upset that they have to wear a suit and have a dumb haircut in order to be taken seriously at their cushy well-paying job (because, honestly, who else wears a suit?). Also, some ladies wear fake tans because being as white as a ghost isn't the most attractive thing ever. I mean it's because of anti-white racism I guess??
The rest of their "fairly cogent counter-rant" was "but not ALL whites," "*I* never lynched a black person, therefore racism don't real," and "Black people are just primitive but I'm not racist for saying that."
Like. That's pretty dang racist, and they aren't gonna magically flip their worldview by talking to me on Slashdot. They don't deserve anything better than a smug look and a snarky comment.
Eh? The video is everwhere.
It isn't sexist that we die earlier, since we have the legal and social right to live as long as we can. It isn't sexism that women can't pee while standing up without using some sort of appliance either (and without getting their legs wet).
It is not in general legal to discriminate against men; perhaps you should provide examples.
I don't know about the harsher sentences; could you give references? It strikes me as a very difficult thing to measure. (There is a great reluctance to go after women who rape men, but that's a lot less common than the reverse.)
School teachers may give boys lower marks, but they don't call on girls as often (and I've seen better sources for the latter than the former).
Men earn more than women, and the reason I've seen most often given is that men work more than women. Given that, I'd expect men in general to work more hours than women in general. It's also much more common to have a stay-at-home wife than a stay-at-home husband.
Why does the government spend more on female healthcare? Could it be that Medicare is the biggest government medical program, it spends a lot on old people, and there are more old women than old men? Or that Medicaid supports families with children more than not, and the man is much more likely to ditch the kids than the woman is? My impression is that specifically female medical problems have been rather neglected by medical research (breast cancer is an exception, perhaps because there are boobs involved), so if there's more funding going to them that may be catch-up. Without knowing where your numbers come from and mean, it's difficult to judge them.
I have seen people bullied for perceived sexual orientation, and at least protected by government institutions. A nearby school district (in Anoka County, Minnesota) wound up having eight suicides in a year, largely because of anti-gay messages protected and to some extent encouraged by the school system. I know a gay person who was in that school district when this was going on, and it was really ugly. I have also known same-sex couples who wanted the legal benefits of marriage with their lifelong loves, and only recently have they gotten it.
Statistically speaking, you are a beneficiary, having avoided a lot of hassles and problems by being the right sex and sexual orientation, and perhaps the right skin color.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd probably walk out and ask for my money back if a comic started being racist rather than funny. (It's a possibility; some of the warmup acts at the comedy club I frequent are barely funny, but they're not offensive to somebody who doesn't mind vulgar language that much.) I don't know that I'd get my money back, but there's a good chance. In any case, that's a private matter, just like the national frat pulling their franchise or whatever.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I was referring to UK law and society, where the harsher sentencing, teacher bias and legal discrimination against men are well established.
Bullying may be more of an issue in the US, and there are religious oriented schools in the UK that actively discriminate against women/girls and homosexual boys, but they're outliers and taken under Government control if they don't stop.
Statistically speaking though, no, I'm not a beneficiary. Shit, I've been assaulted three times in the last four months by women, with no action taken against them. Sure, I could put any of them into hospital with ease but the bystanders laughing at them attacking me would stop laughing if I defended myself..
Lower life expectancy is a gender politics issue btw - until women work the same hours as men, in jobs as physically arduous and dangerous, retire at the same age and don't get the choice of skipping a few years work to look after the kids, life expectancy wont equalise. The gap has however started to narrow, as women that did work through their careers become more common amongst the pensioners.
Your first paragraph is at least partly accurate, although it seems to me that more prominent Republicans than prominent Democrats liked Hitler. Your second paragraph is completely out of right field.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Got a source for the army stuff? There was a lot of racism in the Armed Forces in WWII, but there was a lot of racism before, and I don't know how it changed. I know it was officially ended by a Democrat.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Because, Lord knows, there's no possible explanation as to why black people might act a bit hostile toward the people that enslaved them for a few hundred years. It's inconceivable!
Who's stopping you? It's here.
I should have made my point clearer. I know it's available. I meant that none of the stories I've seen in the news and on the net that squawk about it the loudest actually linked to it.
Seriously? They are a state agency no different from state parks and public high schools.
Yes, the national frat is private business. The University is not private business; it is a state school.
"If [I] want it to be disallowed to require [me] to give [my] first amendment right by government fiat...?"
The Constitution of the United States of America says that it is disallowed and the Supreme Court has affirmed that on many occasions. It is not simply a matter of what I want, it is pretty much a matter of settled law. If all you damn lefties would just understand that the 1st amendment exists and is settled law and stop foaming at the mouth every time some teenager utters something about their favorite deity, the whole country might understand this. Students do not lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they choose to attend a public school. Get over it.
If you can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it clearly defines your right to ask the government to forcibly take my property, valuables and wealth and give it to you just because you don't want to work, I would be very grateful.
I consider pointing out the truth of you being offended precisely that... Sorry you disagree, but you are the one ranting.
I asked for names and all you could do is trash talk. I guess that makes where in the grand scheme of things. I'm betting it is not where you think it is.
I am no lawyer and not racist. I have a business and put surveillance cameras in that can record audio. In my state that is a violation of wiretap laws to record audio. You don't need to be going around recording audio here. If they do say something bad it isn't allowed in court but you can be charged. Just a curiousity.
So? If this is not admissible in a court is everything else much ado about nothing?
"If you start allowing for instances of "acceptable racism", you're not a serious person who wants to see it removed from society." You mean like white officers being frequently overly violent against blacks. That kind of "acceptable racism"... the pendulum swings two ways.
Because in my experience, that sort of lazy ad hominem is most frequently practiced by people on the left of the political spectrum. The reflexive Fox! Fox! Fox! is a classic example.
...and yet "lazy left" isn't a frequently practiced ad hominem in your world? In other words "lazy left" == "Fox! Fox! Fox!"
Racist rants should be universally held up for shame, but the media - especially the proudly left-leaning outlets - are absolutely duplicitous on that subject.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that if a group of blacks was chanting overtly racist remarks they wouldn't be called on it by whites? but then I suppose things like "black lives matter" is probably racist chanting in your world.
Actually, while that example wasn't great, he makes many valid points, such as calling the parent on his blatant racism.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.