• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Univ. of Oklahoma severs ties with frat after racist chant

No, that's you trying out your 2nd strawman argument. What I have stated is that the university ignored it even though they without a doubt knew about it. This didn't start in a vacuum. There had to have been rumors, water cooler conversations, late night coffee and cigarette discussions where the school officials touched on the topic in some manner. However, they ignored it as long as it wasn't out in the open and they had no concrete evidence. That is entirely separate from the obvious fact that this was acceptable behavior amongst the fraternity's members. Have you even watched the video?

Don't cry "strawman". That's weak, and you know it. You said this was "acceptable" behavior to the university. That's a pretty serious allegation as well.

I've seen the clip on the bus. It's a 9 second clip. Why?
 
The thought police at it again.....

People can think and usually even say what they want....but the First Amendment only protects them from consequences from the govt.
 
People can think and usually even say what they want....but the First Amendment only protects them from consequences from the govt.

That's what makes this murky. The University of Oklahoma is a state university.
 
Don't cry "strawman". That's weak, and you know it. You said this was "acceptable" behavior to the university.

No, I did not. That's your strawman again. I said that this was acceptable behavior AMONGST THE MEMBERS. What members? Gee, I don't know. The Jackson 5 members? The members of Earth Wind & Fire perhaps? It's obvious I was talking about the fraternity's members. You're just trying to grasp at straws because every other argument you've made falls flat on its face.
 
That's what makes this murky. The University of Oklahoma is a state university.

True, and I'm not sure of the laws governing the state university structure in Oklahoma, but generally speaking, many state universities operate with a fairly high level of autonomy.
 
What is Oklahoma's eavesdropping laws? The phone owner who recorded this -- if applicable -- should be charged.

Is this not a private organization? Are they not allowed the freedom of expression and don't its members (of a fraternal organization known for its secrecy) have a certain expectation to privacy?

Or have people lost their marbles again and decided to sacrifice rights and laws on the alter of political correctness?

LOL! WUT?

Eavesdropping laws are for recording telephone calls
 
No, I did not. That's your strawman again. I said that this was acceptable behavior AMONGST THE MEMBERS. What members? Gee, I don't know. The Jackson 5 members? The members of Earth Wind & Fire perhaps? It's obvious I was talking about the fraternity's members. You're just trying to grasp at straws because every other argument you've made falls flat on its face.

You didn't say any such thing. The poster was only talking about the University. Let me remind you of your post again:

Given how nonchalantly the students were singing their racist song? Of course they f'n knew. Again, this was ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR for the members. To pretend that at no point the school administration knew of it is like saying Penn State didn't know about Sandusky.

So once again - did you not read the post you quoted and responded to?
 
Huh? It was racist. Racists discriminate based on skin color. Bigots discriminate based on their beliefs.

Better look up the definition of both words. I heard nothing to indicate:

a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
 
Better look up the definition of both words. I heard nothing to indicate:

a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

big·ot


/ˈbiɡət/


noun

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots


a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
 
You didn't say any such thing. The poster was only talking about the University. Let me remind you of your post again:

Again, this was ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR for the members.

You're grasping. The behavior in question was acceptable for the members of the fraternity. It doesn't mean that the university accepted their behavior. What it means is that that this sort of behavior was accepted by the members. Hell, the video gives zero indication of anything else. You trying to twist it to mean something about your invented members of the university term shows how desperate you are to win at something.
 
Last edited:
It's a growing process. [generally] The culture we have today doesn't help the situation. White kids listening to vulgar Rap music, then trying to emulate them.

Most white kids are listening to vulgar Metal far more than rap and are far more impacted by the lyrics therein.

you'll be hard pressed to find these images in the album art and marketing of rap -

p18kk91fuq1bm3890gni17u817ev4.jpg


MI0002786012.jpg


SUICIDAL%2BANGELS%2BBloodbath%2BCOVER.jpg


This is a genre that is entirely comprised of White musicians and has a devout and dedicated following of white fans that spans the globe by the millions.

So place whatever filth you see in your own racial community were it actually belongs.

Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
You're grasping. The behavior in question was acceptable for the members of the fraternity. You trying to twist it to mean something about your invented members of the university term shows how desperate you are to win at something.

He was not talking about the fraternity. He was talking about the UNIVERSITY. I'm not inventing anything - unlike you, I'm paying attention to what posters post. When he said:

I guarantee Univ officials knew about this stuff for years and did nothing about it, second as a taxpayer funded entity if they allow frats to be affiliated they need to allow all points of view without bias amongst them

you went on a tear agreeing with him:

Of course they knew. There's no ****ing way they didn't know this was going down. What's bull**** is that people want us to believe that this exists in a vacuum. It clearly doesn't as far as this organization is concerned.

Now you're upset because you were talking about the fraternity, not the university. Okay. You responded to a post claiming that the university knew, agreeing that the university knew, but you were actually talking about some other entity knowing. Next time you should pay attention so you're agreeing with a post that you actually read.
 
LOL! WUT?

Eavesdropping laws are for recording telephone calls

Oh look, a picker of nits...how quaint...:roll:

Actually that would be wire tapping according to Black's Law dictionary eavesdropping is merely defined as "secretly listening to the private conversation of others without their consent"

Doesn't say over the phone or by mega phone, but good way to stay irrelevant! :thumbs:
 
The point was you didn't engage with anyone. You invented the position of unnamed "liberals" and then stridently attacked "liberals" for positions you invented and attributed to them, but that no one that I can find on this thread actually expressed. If a person did express it, it's still nonsense to attribute what are the opinions of ONE person to this apparently homogeneous group of "liberals" who apparently in your view ALL have the same opinion of when and where the 1st Amendment applies or not.

Maybe it makes you feel better to trash "liberals", but it's intellectually lazy BS. Sorry you got called out for it.

No need to apologize--I find your contrived denials intellectually lazy. I don't need to invent faux liberals, because they can be found all over--including on sites like this one. Your attempt to deny that they are an identifiable group that commonly disdains the First Amendment is about as convincing as claiming they don't commonly disdain the Second. When they are not busy attacking religious freedoms, or promoting restrictive speech codes, or lauding state public accommodations laws that insult the freedoms of association and expressive speech in the name of homosexual rights, so-called liberals are attacking the right to keep and bear arms. All you do by defending these intolerant, undemocratic people is suggest you are sympathetic to them. The true liberals in this country today are the people commonly called--inaccurately--"conservatives."

The many thousands of comments I have read by people who claim to be liberals have taught me to assume they are the very opposite, until they provide evidence they are not. As they reveal their views, they usually show my initial assumption about their true colors was correct. I have seen exceptions, but only seldom.

I see someone printed the university's conduct code, as if the simple fact a state law or regulation existed were proof of its constitutionality. But thousands of such laws and regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional. I don't say this one is, but the Supreme Court protects the freedom of speech about as strongly as anything in the Constitution. Having a free country means letting people say hateful and repugnant things--in fact the Court has observed that it is exactly the most unpopular speech that calls for the greatest protection. In this country, we don't rush to the rescue every time some delicate flower points his finger and wails, through his tears, that the bad man said mean things that made him feel all icky. The world is not a kindergarten, however much faux liberals would like to make it one.
 
He was not talking about the fraternity.

No kidding! I already said that I added that. I said this about 10-15 posts back. Are you seriously this desperate to make some kind of point?

Now you're upset because you were talking about the fraternity, not the university. Okay. You responded to a post claiming that the university knew, agreeing that the university knew, but you were actually talking about some other entity knowing. Next time you should pay attention so you're agreeing with a post that you actually read.

I already stated that I discussed both in my post. I discussed the university knowing AND the behavior being acceptable for the members of the fraternity. You even quoted/responded to the post where I first explained this (200). Was the post not clear enough? There is really no concise way to explain that I discussed both issues. However, we're at that stage where you're just trying to not admit that your points really failed to convince anyone.
 
Oh look, a picker of nits...how quaint...:roll:

Actually that would be wire tapping according to Black's Law dictionary eavesdropping is merely defined as "secretly listening to the private conversation of others without their consent"

Doesn't say over the phone or by mega phone, but good way to stay irrelevant! :thumb:

No, wire tapping does not mean "recording a telephone call" and regardless of what the word eavesdropping means, the term "eavesdropping laws" refer to laws which prohibit the taping or listening to phone calls without permission.

Recording events in a public space is allowed by law if it's not done for a commercial purpose. Actual eavesdropping on a conversation in public is also legal
 
Last edited:
No, wire tapping does not mean "recording a telephone call" and regardless of what the word eavesdropping means, the term "eavesdropping laws" refer to laws which prohibit the taping of phone calls without permission.

Recording events in a public space is allowed by law if it's not done for a commercial purpose.

A bus chartered by a private organization is not a public space.

But again, keep trying to defend the indefensible so your white guilt is soothed...
 
No kidding! I already said that I added that. I said this about 10-15 posts back. Are you seriously this desperate to make some kind of point?



I already stated that I discussed both in my post. I discussed the university knowing AND the behavior being acceptable for the members of the fraternity. You even quoted/responded to the post where I first explained this (200). Was the post not clear enough? There is really no concise way to explain that I discussed both issues. However, we're at that stage where you're just trying to not admit that your points really failed to convince anyone.

This is SOP. Soon she will accuse you of getting emotional or claim that she doesn't care.
 
People can think and usually even say what they want....but the First Amendment only protects them from consequences from the govt.

I would argue the university is an arm of the government.....

The other thing, is that the definition of racist has been so loose and to the point where anyone qualifies as racist. It's like that Seattle police woman, who gotten trouble for stopping the black man with the golf club, and the Seattle stranger dug up a post from that officer about ferguson and said it was racist posting, except the Facebook posting question, was a mainstream political opinion. We're at the point where if you criticize anyone, you can be called a racist so I'm not particularly a fan of the university now deciding that something is racist and severing all ties with what is presumably a group of students paying tuition
 
You've been reduced to making up fictional scenarios to rationalize your bigotries

Thank you for revealing which of the groups I was discussing you belong in. It is at least good for a laugh to see you accuse anyone else of either making up fictions or bigotry.
 
A bus chartered by a private organization is not a public space.

But again, keep trying to defend the indefensible so your white guilt is soothed...
However the conversation has to be private for the eavesdropping law to apply
I would argue, that a conversation on a crowded bus regardless of who's chartered it, qualifies as a public conversation
 
However the conversation has to be private for the eavesdropping law to apply
I would argue, that a conversation on a crowded bus regardless of who's chartered it, qualifies as a public conversation

I would disagree as it is a space confined for private purpose.

**Further, what is defined as a "private conversation" It wouldn't be exclusive to 2 parties lest conference calls and the like wouldn't be covered, which, I'm no lawyer, but I believe would be.
 
I would argue the university is an arm of the government.....

Yes, of course it is acting as the state for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

We're at the point where if you criticize anyone, you can be called a racist

How are faux liberals supposed to silence people whose views they dislike, except by character assassination? It's right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.
 
black students may try joining a beta gamma club if they believe alfa is racist
 
I would disagree as it is a space confined for private purpose.

According to Oklahoma law, it is a felony to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or disclose the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Okla. Stat. tit. 13 § 176.3. It is not a crime for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the conversation or when one party to the conversation has given prior consent, so long as the person does not intercept the communication for criminal purposes. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.4.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.2.

- See more at: Oklahoma - State laws - Wire Tapping

I think the recorder is on solid legal ground
 
Back
Top Bottom