Feeling outrage over this only makes sense if you believe we live in a magic world in which these sort of unsavory sentiments don't exist. I say that because these kids were on a private bus among themselves, and not in public chanting this, or heckling black students in any way. Had they been doing that, I'd have little issue with them being shut down.

From the vantage point of the country as a whole, this is essentially Orwellian thoughtcrime at work. If not for the smartphone, no one outside those on the bus would have known it happened at all. Now privy to their 'thoughts,' the popular view is to punish them because those thoughts are unsavory. That doesn't sit well with me, even though I find their chant terrible. Same thing with Donald Sterling. He said things in a private conversation, and the end result of that action alone was the loss of his basketball team, despite his comments not being indicative of racial discrimination in his operations of the team.

Just like with Sterling, I'm seeing a lot of justification of the actions against the fraternity, up to and including expulsion of its members, based on that old canard 'you have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences!!!' Fair enough, but when you say something stupid, the consequences are people thinking you are an idiot with stupid views. The consequences should not be you lose your employment/education and/or are ostracized from society. That they effectively are is down to politically correct framing of thought to the point that you have freedom of speech (as long as it's on message).

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

Ok medias do not portray racism fairly.

OK, they tend to forget some crimes made my black men, Muslims, or whatever you want that's mostly Non-White.

How does that excuse what the few white men that were busted commiting the same acts?

You can complain about the way that medias treat the information. However it doesn't mean any less that crimes commited by white men must be excused.

And using free speech and the right to say whatever you want in private does not make your ideas less nauseous if they are, effectively.

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

It's just pathetic how sensitive people have become due to the incredible amounts of media brainwashing regarding racism we've experienced over the past few decades.

Imagine what Malcolm X would have said in response to this chant of, "There will never be a nigger in SAE!" Probably something like, "And thank God for that, why would we want to join the white man's fraternity? They're not our brothers, we are black and proud to be so and can form our own brotherhoods just fine."

Now that's an attitude of strength, the attitude of a man, an attitude worthy of respect. But today people are conditioned to just curl into a ball and start crying every time a white man says something racist. It would be hilarious if it weren't so predictable and pathetic.

Every time non-whites buy into this artificial culture of racism and take offense with this sort of faux-outrage, they are playing right into the hands of SJWs/progressives who like to treat minorities like children, keeping them scared and weak and thus reliant on progressives to protect them against the evil white man. Minorities need to wake up and recognize this bullshit for what it is. Stop buying into this culture of victimhood.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:10 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:08 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

Feeling outrage over this only makes sense if you believe we live in a magic world in which these sort of unsavory sentiments don't exist. I say that because these kids were on a private bus among themselves, and not in public chanting this, or heckling black students in any way. Had they been doing that, I'd have little issue with them being shut down.

From the vantage point of the country as a whole, this is essentially Orwellian thoughtcrime at work. If not for the smartphone, no one outside those on the bus would have known it happened at all. Now privy to their 'thoughts,' the popular view is to punish them because those thoughts are unsavory. That doesn't sit well with me, even though I find their chant terrible. Same thing with Donald Sterling. He said things in a private conversation, and the end result of that action alone was the loss of his basketball team, despite his comments not being indicative of racial discrimination in his operations of the team.

Just like with Sterling, I'm seeing a lot of justification of the actions against the fraternity, up to and including expulsion of its members, based on that old canard 'you have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences!!!' Fair enough, but when you say something stupid, the consequences are people thinking you are an idiot with stupid views. The consequences should not be you lose your employment/education and/or are ostracized from society. That they effectively are is down to politically correct framing of thought to the point that you have freedom of speech (as long as it's on message).

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

The problem is this was not in the "privacy of their own homes." They were, I am assuming, using an organization sanctioned bus to attend some kind of organization sancitoned event. That organization is associated with, and sponsored by, the school. The school has every right to distance itself from this. It would be the same if one of the networking clubs at my company decided to do this during company time. This is not private.

(Contrast this with singing the same racist chant inside your own apartment ie. a non-frat house, non-university dorm).

Look, maybe the university is covering its ass, and maybe the national chapter is doing the same thing. I doubt either actually gives a fuck about black people. But the point to be reinforced is - you have a right to be a racist. But don't involve us in your racism, and keep it to yourself.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:08 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

It looks like it was mostly the decision of the players, not the coaches. Even if the coaches made practice mandatory, I think the players still would've protested against the Frat.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:13 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:10 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

I have no love for fraternities and think they promote immature behavior. But the real issue here is why is this a national story? The event we speak of is a 10 second video of a chant on a private chartered bus. Why does this merit national attention? If this is a story, how about if some racist old lady in Alabama says racial slurs in her sleep and someone records it with a camera phone? Is there no privacy anymore? The leftist media is intentionally promoting these stories to manufacture outrage. They have to promote their narratives and also shore up their failing enterprises. There is no mystery why FOX news is kicking ass in the ratings war with the liberal media.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:13 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:10 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

I'm always... ALWAYS the type to roll my eyes whenever I see a headline about "racism." 99% of that shit is hysterically over-hyped nonsense manufactured by professional victims who just want a scapegoat for their own failings.

With that said, these dudes are fucked up, and they deserve every bit of vitriol that comes their way. I don't see any ambiguity in this situation. Their chant clearly demonstrated--and I hesitate to use this word because it's another one that usually makes me roll my eyes--hate. If you gleefully exclaim how you would rather see a black man murdered than accepted into your group, then you're a hateful bigot by anyone's definition, not just the retarded SJW definition. No, I don't believe these guys would actually endorse the murder of a black man, but the chant still reveals an extremely toxic mentality that has no place in a peaceful society.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:12 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It's just pathetic how sensitive people have become due to the incredible amounts of media brainwashing regarding racism we've experienced over the past few decades.

Imagine what Malcolm X would have said in response to this chant of, "There will never be a nigger in SAE!" Probably something like, "And thank God for that, why would we want to join the white man's fraternity? They're not our brothers, we are black and proud to be so and can form our own brotherhoods just fine."

Now that's an attitude of strength, the attitude of a man, an attitude worthy of respect. But today people are conditioned to just curl into a ball and start crying every time a white man says something racist. It would be hilarious if it weren't so predictable and pathetic.

Every time non-whites buy into this artificial culture of racism and take offense with this sort of faux-outrage, they are playing right into the hands of SJWs/progressives who like to treat minorities like children, keeping them scared and weak and thus reliant on progressives to protect them against the evil white man. Minorities need to wake up and recognize this bullshit for what it is. Stop buying into this culture of victimhood.

We are not buying any culture of victimhood. No one here cried.
No minority complained about not being admitted in that fraternity.
No minority complained about not getting the same treatment by administration, or other students on campus as those white guys.
On the pretext of free speech you expect us to allow others to call us however they want?
Because free speech is in the constitution, when someone calls me nigger I should just shut up and let him procede?

What I notice is that you very often use the "evil white men" card on the forum, and draw a distinct line between white men and the minorities.

Why do that? Aren't we all brothers?
That "attack on white men" is perhaps the greatest factor of division in the manosphere. Maybe a bit of Tuthmosis wise words would be good.



While I'm the first to say that game and the manosphere are unfairly demonized--and that poor guys like this blogger are the collateral damage of that characterization--we're also partly to blame. Guys like us are the inheritors of the practical, non-commercial, regular-guy self-improvement (game) mantle--the best, and maybe only, alternative to salesy Youtubers with actresses in their "real daygame" videos and expensive coaching packages for sale. Yet we've lost sight of the important things.

Instead of spending so much time and energy talking about the apocalyptic "fall of civilization," the life-and-death struggle with "Social Justice Warriors," how "Muslim infiltration" is destroying "Western Civilization," and that restaurants being allowed to deny black people service is the height of the "free market working as it should," we should be focusing on reaching guys like this. Rather, I find us (rather foolhardily) trying to make some kind of wholesale ideological change from the comfort of our laptops. It may feel good to read and say something so unpopular and so verboten, but that short-term contrarian pleasure is siphoning energy--and, more importantly, sympathetic hearts and minds--from our little corner of the world. The wrong voices are getting louder, while the more articulate and pragmatic ones are getting fainter. Don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with a bit of social commentary, and taking unpopular opinions; I've always supported that. But we're not doing ourselves any favors by embracing an increasingly fringe status and heavy, even angry and uninformed, tone. Some time ago, I did an AMA on the "redpill" sub-reddit. In it, I was asked what I considered to be "the manophere's biggest weaknesses going forward." I warned that giving the wrong views, or people, too much of a platform would stunt the manosphere's growth, even discredit it altogether. We might never have reached this particular poor bastard, but guys like him are our growth, and I see some of what I said coming to pass.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:21 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:13 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:10 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

The frat is associated with the university? I didn't see anything about federal government involvement. If there is, that's crossing the line. I have no problem with the university controlling which organizations it wants to sponsor, fund, and facilitate on its campus. If you don't get sponsorship, it just means you don't get its support - there's no prohibition on you starting a non-affiliated organization. Nobody is stopping you from starting your own kkk chapter in the collegetown.

You let this kind of stuff get out then you deserve the repercussions.

Blame it on the girl all you want but hoes gonna be hoes. It's on you to keep stuff in house.

Not to anyone in particular, but would your views on this "story" be different if the chant were about women instead of blacks?

If so, you're playing the "Who? Whom?" identity politics feelings-game and not operating off of first principles and consistency.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:25 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

You let this kind of stuff get out then you deserve the repercussions.

Blame it on the girl all you want but hoes gonna be hoes. It's on you to keep stuff in house.

Yes--

1. The moment a non-fraternity member is present, you are effectively in public.
2. Sloots gonna sloot

This fraternity definitely failed the Jumbotron Test, to say the least.

I'm actually less upset about the racism and more upset about the ignorance and lack of self-awareness. These dudes should know from watching Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin that the media is obsessed with race. They also be well aware that women are snitches (I have no doubt the person filming it was a girl). When you drop those two fetters to be an idiot I have hard time having pity for you, drunk or not.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:26 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Not to anyone in particular, but would your views on this "story" be different if the chant were about women instead of blacks?

If so, you're playing the "Who? Whom?" identity politics feelings-game and not operating off of first principles and consistency.

No.

I have no hatred towards women. Game and red pill enables me to recognize women are capable of horrible, evil things, just like any other human being. It de-pedestalizes them. That doesn't automatically make them by definition monsters. It just makes them regular human beings - complex, flawed creatures. If a group of dudes starting chanting they'd rather see women burn than join their organization, it would be equally reprehensible. And if we turned it around and it the targets were white men? Same reaction.

Scorpion is one of the posters whose posts always get extra attention from me, but it is unsettling to see him and many others trying to fit this into some narrative of the evil political correctness campaign persecuting us helpless white men..

Uh... These dudes memorized a racist song that included ugly slurs and a reference to lynching blacks then they were stupid enough to get caught on video singing it.

Of course these actions are all justified. They put their university and their national chapter into a position where they looked terrible and had to cover their asses. So they did.

No one is sending these kids to jail. But if you want to live in a multicultural society you probably shouldn't memorize songs about "hanging n*ggers from trees" and sing them when your drunken dumbass dates are around to capture it on their smart phones.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:24 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:21 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:13 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:10 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

The frat is associated with the university? I didn't see anything about federal government involvement. If there is, that's crossing the line. I have no problem with the university controlling which organizations it wants to sponsor, fund, and facilitate on its campus. If you don't get sponsorship, it just means you don't get its support - there's no prohibition on you starting a non-affiliated organization. Nobody is stopping you from starting your own kkk chapter in the collegetown.

Playing devil's advocate here. Are those universities state or federal funded to any degree? If so, those are public funds and the universities are not rightly seen as private institutions imbued with the right to make these sort of decisions for themselves.

But more to the point, if you believe this then you evidently don't find your earlier argument persuasive. You either allow individuals freedom to speak and associate voluntarily and accept and embrace what comes of that, or you favor some level of coercion from some governing body. Just so we're clear coercion from a central authority isn't "social consequences."

The biggest problem with this isn't that it's censorious, it's that the censorship isn't evenly meted out. These are the same campuses where white people are castigated for being privileged.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

We are not buying any culture of victimhood. No one here cried.

Maybe not you or guys here, but the internet and media are full of crocodile tears over this story. All fake. No one is really crying, they just go along with the charade of feigning offense and outrage because that's the dominant social narrative that they've been propagandized to support.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

No minority complained about not being admitted in that fraternity.

Exactly. So who the fuck cares about a "no niggers" chant if no black guys even wanted to join in the first place?

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

No minority complained about not getting the same treatment by administration, or other students on campus as those white guys.

True. And again, where is the problem, then? This just proves that drunk white guys singing a racist song on a private bus means absolutely nothing and has zero consequences on any black people, anywhere.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

On the pretext of free speech you expect us to allow others to call us however they want?

Yes. That's how free speech works. Feel free to respond to him however you'd like, as that is your right. But if you are going to "call out racism" and whatnot, be prepared for someone to call you out for faux-outrage if it's obvious you aren't really even upset about it at all.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Because free speech is in the constitution, when someone calls me nigger I should just shut up and let him procede?

Who is calling you a nigger? Random frat boys on a private bus in Oklahoma? Do you really feel personally aggrieved when watching this grainy cell phone video? You take this song as a personal racial attack? I seriously doubt you are that sensitive.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:23 PM)mikado Wrote:  

What I notice is that you very often use the "evil white men" card on the forum, and draw a distinct line between white men and the minorities. Why do that? Aren't we all brothers?

I draw much less distinction between white men and minorities than progressives and SJWs do. I merely speak out against white men being vilified as the root of all evil, which is the dominant cultural narrative of the day.

Mikado, singing a racist song isn't a crime. Killing a guy with hammers miles from where I used to live, and the people who do it admit it was because he was white, and the story gets no press, that is a crime. Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot. O, and by the way, it was a Muslim white.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:16 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:08 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

Feeling outrage over this only makes sense if you believe we live in a magic world in which these sort of unsavory sentiments don't exist. I say that because these kids were on a private bus among themselves, and not in public chanting this, or heckling black students in any way. Had they been doing that, I'd have little issue with them being shut down.

From the vantage point of the country as a whole, this is essentially Orwellian thoughtcrime at work. If not for the smartphone, no one outside those on the bus would have known it happened at all. Now privy to their 'thoughts,' the popular view is to punish them because those thoughts are unsavory. That doesn't sit well with me, even though I find their chant terrible. Same thing with Donald Sterling. He said things in a private conversation, and the end result of that action alone was the loss of his basketball team, despite his comments not being indicative of racial discrimination in his operations of the team.

Just like with Sterling, I'm seeing a lot of justification of the actions against the fraternity, up to and including expulsion of its members, based on that old canard 'you have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences!!!' Fair enough, but when you say something stupid, the consequences are people thinking you are an idiot with stupid views. The consequences should not be you lose your employment/education and/or are ostracized from society. That they effectively are is down to politically correct framing of thought to the point that you have freedom of speech (as long as it's on message).

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

The problem is this was not in the "privacy of their own homes." They were, I am assuming, using an organization sanctioned bus to attend some kind of organization sancitoned event. That organization is associated with, and sponsored by, the school. The school has every right to distance itself from this. It would be the same if one of the networking clubs at my company decided to do this during company time. This is not private.

(Contrast this with singing the same racist chant inside your own apartment ie. a non-frat house, non-university dorm).

Look, maybe the university is covering its ass, and maybe the national chapter is doing the same thing. I doubt either actually gives a fuck about black people. But the point to be reinforced is - you have a right to be a racist. But don't involve us in your racism, and keep it to yourself.

Well the chant is organization specific - it would only ever be chanted in that setting, whether it was a sanctioned bus, or inside their fraternity house.

My point still stands, there is a difference between an offensive chant, and discriminatory behavior. The former becomes the latter when directed at specific individuals, but it wasn't in this case. I'm arguing that beyond thinking these kids are idiots, and choosing as an individual not to associate with them, nothing else is really warranted.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:19 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:08 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

It looks like it was mostly the decision of the players, not the coaches. Even if the coaches made practice mandatory, I think the players still would've protested against the Frat.

I didn't know it was a players decision. In that case, the message I described comes naturally to them. That might be worse.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:26 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Not to anyone in particular, but would your views on this "story" be different if the chant were about women instead of blacks?

In the song they reference killing and hanging black people from trees. If they were singing about violently gang raping/killing women I would be just as against it, and I assume everyone else would.

Quote: (03-09-2015 09:38 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Mikado, singing a racist song isn't a crime. Killing a guy with hammers miles from where I used to live, and the people who do it admit it was because he was white, and the story gets no press, that is a crime. Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot. O, and by the way, it was a Muslim white.

I am done with you.