• 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!

Fraternity expels 3 linked to statue noose, suspends Ole Miss chapter

Alcohol and tobacco have nothing to do with this thread, neither does the voting age.
Ole Miss is to be congratulated for setting the proper example fror their student body going forth.
This is a learning moment for all of their students, and hopefully for the three involved also .
 
What's unbelievable is your reaction. Nowhere did I suggest giving them a pass. They did what they did, for whatever stupid reason they pulled the prank. The over reaction is indicting the school, the state, the country, the fraternity as some of you seem to enjoy doing in your race to satisfy some sort of racist based guilt.

That said, a college kid gets caught mooning passersbys from a moving vehicle. That could buy them the same consequence as a pervert flasher receives/ The key is judgement. One of these things is not like the other.

Where did I do any of those things. Go back and find where I indicted the whole state of Mississippi, the college, or in fact anyone other than them. You were complaining about how their "lives and careers are impacted forever...." Yes, they are impacted by the stupid decision that they made.

Your contention wass that their lives shouldn't be impacted. In other words: "no punishment." Now you're backpedaling.
 
Where did I do any of those things. Go back and find where I indicted the whole state of Mississippi, the college, or in fact anyone other than them. You were complaining about how their "lives and careers are impacted forever...." Yes, they are impacted by the stupid decision that they made.

Your contention wass that their lives shouldn't be impacted. In other words: "no punishment." Now you're backpedaling.

Nonsense. I wasn't complaining, simply stating the fact. If fact if you read the post and what I was responding to I was doing the opposite of complaining.

Also I did not single you out as one of the ones indicting the school, the state and the fraternity for the behavior of three young students whose prank may or may not have been racially motivated.
 
Question: If I'm in the kitchen with someone, I lose my balance and bump into them, and they fall on the stove and burn their hand, does it make it hurt any less?

Nope and where did you get the silly idea that anyone said it would? If you can't see a meaningful difference between that and someone grabbing another person and forcibly holding their hand against a burner then you're completely out of touch with reality. One is assault and one is not. Intent absolutely matters.
 
What I find surprising is that racial tolerance seems to be inversely related to living in populations with low racial diversity. Obama's share of the white vote increased in states where there was lower levels of black population. Odd, isn't it?

Only if you assume the correlation is causation. Got a link?

If I had to guess it would be that certain states that have high levels of black population might also have had more widespread and deeply entrenched racism at one point in history (ie, the South). In which case it would hardly be surprising to find that such states are bringing up the rear in terms of racial tolerance.
 
Only if you assume the correlation is causation. Got a link?

If I had to guess it would be that certain states that have high levels of black population might also have had more widespread and deeply entrenched racism at one point in history (ie, the South). In which case it would hardly be surprising to find that such states are bringing up the rear in terms of racial tolerance.

I would also hazard that Obama's share of a vote is a poor measurement of racial tolerance.
 
Only if you assume the correlation is causation. Got a link?

statevotebyrace.gif


If I had to guess it would be that certain states that have high levels of black population might also have had more widespread and deeply entrenched racism at one point in history (ie, the South). In which case it would hardly be surprising to find that such states are bringing up the rear in terms of racial tolerance.

I'd counter with the Cosby Show Effect. Whites with little exposure to black community have an idealized vision. What social science tells us is that multiculturalism destroys the fabric of society, so heavily multicultural societies are going to have more racial division that is seen in more homogeneous societies, or states, or cities. After all, liberals flock to Vermont and Portland and not to Detroit and Birmingham where they would have more opportunity to bite into the delicious fruit of multiculturalism.
 
Oh for God's sake. A kid prank. Yeah, it's a racist prank. The kids probably aren't. Who knows?

Frankly, I think the fraternity HQ over-reacted. If anything, the kids should have been suspended from the school.

When you suspend them, you flirt with violating their 1st Amendment rights.
 
When you suspend them, you flirt with violating their 1st Amendment rights.

I don't buy that. Being disciplined for defacing a statue, burning a cross, things like that are certainly not violating one's 1st Amendment Rights. They had the right to SAY what they pleased. They crossed that line.
 

Wow. Thanks for that, I couldn't have posted more convincing evidence of my argument myself. :lol: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky. lol, I could practically use this graph as a road map indicating on which each state fought in the Civil War. You're surprised these states show signs of racial intolerance? Are you surprised when water is wet too? :lamo

I'd counter with the Cosby Show Effect. Whites with little exposure to black community have an idealized vision.

Maybe so.

What social science tells us is that multiculturalism destroys the fabric of society,

lol. Oh, ok. If you say so. :roll:

so heavily multicultural societies are going to have more racial division that is seen in more homogeneous societies, or states, or cities.

It's self-evident that a homogenous society isn't going to have much racial division - there's nothing to divide. That doesn't mean that homogenous societies are necessarily more racially tolerant.

After all, liberals flock to Vermont and Portland and not to Detroit and Birmingham where they would have more opportunity to bite into the delicious fruit of multiculturalism.

Again you struggle differentiating correlation and causation. :mrgreen:
 
I don't buy that. Being disciplined for defacing a statue, burning a cross, things like that are certainly not violating one's 1st Amendment Rights. They had the right to SAY what they pleased. They crossed that line.

Was there any permanent damage done to the statue? If not, then there is no vandalism.

Using your logic, would you agree that someone defacing a statue, on campus, of Robert E. Lee, or Nathan Bedford Forrest should be punished similarly?

Double standards are what The Civil Rights Movement was fighting against. Supporting double standards pisses on the whole notion of The Civil Rights Movement.
 
You're surprised these states show signs of racial intolerance? Are you surprised when water is wet too?

The question is why there is a relationship. Why does discord increase as the size of the black population increases? Weren't Virginia and South Carolina in the Old South alongside Mississippi and Alabama and didn't they all share some common culture? So why a correlation?

It's self-evident that a homogenous society isn't going to have much racial division - there's nothing to divide.

It's not as self-evident as you imagine. It's quite possible for a mostly homogeneous society to have a virulent reaction to a small minority community - say what happens when Gypsies arrive into town. Or maybe not. Liberals imagine that there should be no racial division in a very multicultural society.

Your criticism presumes exactly what social science reports - introduce racial diversity and division will increase. So if you already understand this, then I didn't tell you anything new. If you were a liberal who believed that there was no connection between racial diversity and division in society, then I would have been telling you something not self-evident. You understand that point, right?

That doesn't mean that homogenous societies are necessarily more racially tolerant.

Of course it doesn't. The people who live in liberal whiteopias rarely get to test their racial tolerance, unlike the people in live in very diverse states like Mississippi.
 
It is Mississippi, a solid red state so no real surprise there.

There may be a correlation, yes, but I don't think it's as strong as we liberals perceive. Every single white American is vulnerable to engaging in racism and thus must look within himself or herself to weed out any racism that may (and probably does) still exist.
 
There may be a correlation, yes, but I don't think it's as strong as we liberals perceive. Every single white American is vulnerable to engaging in racism and thus must look within himself or herself to weed out any racism that may (and probably does) still exist.

Every single American, regardless of race, is vulnerable to engaging in racism. Why do you hold white folks to a different standard? Why do you assume that whites are racist--anymore than any other race? Is it because of racism?
 
It makes it an accident VS intentional. It can make a world of difference. Imagine if my husband accidentally hurt me VS intentionally hurt me. One is 'no biggie, you didn't mean to' and the other is '**** off - I'm leaving'

Intent matters a lot in our country in a variety of ways.

By expelling the students I believe they're saying that the 'intent was to be hateful - not just silly'

I will ask you the same question I asked the Recruit. If I'm in the kitchen with someone, I lose my balance and bump into them, and they fall on the stove and burn their hand, does the fact that it was unintentional make it hurt any less?

So every comedian who made a racial joke is guilty of racism, though their intent was obviously in jest.

/snooze

Do not insert words into my mouth. "Racial" and "racist" are not the same thing. Racial jokes are risky territory for comedians, yes, but they are not necessarily racist.

Pull up a definition of racism and explain how this action meets the definition of racism.

It certainly meets the definition of insensitive, thoughtless, provocative, but not racist.

So you want me to provide a definition of "racism," but before I even do that, you preemptively claim that this incident was not racist? That's a rather strange debate tactic you are using.


Exactly. So it is with racism. Whether they meant to be racist means absolutely nothing. Whether they were being racist is what counts.

and where did you blah blah blah blah

Stop. Your direct answer was sufficient. You do not need to try to justify their acts.
 
So you want me to provide a definition of "racism," but before I even do that, you preemptively claim that this incident was not racist? That's a rather strange debate tactic you are using.

Why is that strange to you? Oh, I get it, you thought I was asking you to pull up a definition so that I could learn the definition. No, that would be a crazy request. If I wanted to refresh my memory on the definition then I could just look for myself and not bother with asking you to look for my benefit.

I asked you to look it up because you were misusing the term and thought that YOU could use a refresher.

Understand now?
 
Why is that strange to you? Oh, I get it, you thought I was asking you to pull up a definition so that I could learn the definition. No, that would be a crazy request. If I wanted to refresh my memory on the definition then I could just look for myself and not bother with asking you to look for my benefit.

I asked you to look it up because you were misusing the term and thought that YOU could use a refresher.

Understand now?

Are you here to have an honest debate, or are you just trying to talk down to me? Methinks your justification for your white privilege is being challenged, and you are deeply offended by that. This is a VERY common reaction from whites when confronted with racism.
 
Are you here to have an honest debate, or are you just trying to talk down to me? Methinks your justification for your white privilege is being challenged, and you are deeply offended by that. This is a VERY common reaction from whites when confronted with racism.

he's trying to talk down to you and anyone else he can get his hands on.
 
Last edited:
he's just trying to talk down to you and anyone else he can get his hands on.

Indeed. But the exposition of his white privilege is worth a temporary aggravation. After all, my white privilege allows me to leave this thread--and this issue--at any time. People of color do not have that privilege.
 
Are you here to have an honest debate, or are you just trying to talk down to me? Methinks your justification for your white privilege is being challenged, and you are deeply offended by that. This is a VERY common reaction from whites when confronted with racism.

If you want an honest debate then you should debate honestly. Don't make up definitions for words, read honestly what your interlocutor writes, and don't insult the good faith of others when they challenge you by accurately responding to what you have written.
 
If you want an honest debate then you should debate honestly. Don't make up definitions for words, read honestly what your interlocutor writes, and don't insult the good faith of others when they challenge you by accurately responding to what you have written.

The freedom you have to post such a childish response comes directly from the white privilege that you and I both have.
 

Indeed. But the exposition of his white privilege is worth a temporary aggravation.
Indeed. Been there done that.
 
Indeed. But the exposition of his white privilege is worth a temporary aggravation. After all, my white privilege allows me to leave this thread--and this issue--at any time. People of color do not have that privilege.

Are you saying that black folks can't leave this thread anytime they want?
 
The question is why there is a relationship. Why does discord increase as the size of the black population increases?

To which I've already proposed an explanation for the existence of such a correlation.

Weren't Virginia and South Carolina in the Old South alongside Mississippi and Alabama and didn't they all share some common culture? So why a correlation?

Did they share similarities? Of course. And differences. There's an overwhelming variety of factors that affect how many whites in a particular state vote for Obama. Until you control for these factors, that there is a statistical correlation between higher black population and fewer Obama-voting whites is not indicative of a causal relationship whatsoever.

It's not as self-evident as you imagine. It's quite possible for a mostly homogeneous society to have a virulent reaction to a small minority community - say what happens when Gypsies arrive into town. Or maybe not. Liberals imagine that there should be no racial division in a very multicultural society. Your criticism presumes exactly what social science reports - introduce racial diversity and division will increase. So if you already understand this, then I didn't tell you anything new. If you were a liberal who believed that there was no connection between racial diversity and division in society, then I would have been telling you something not self-evident. You understand that point, right?

Of course it doesn't. The people who live in liberal whiteopias rarely get to test their racial tolerance, unlike the people in live in very diverse states like Mississippi.

Let me be clear. If racial diversity is introduced into a homogenous society that is racially intolerant, than, yes racial division in that society will increase. That seems self-evident to me. But I see no evidence that introducing racial diversity into a society will increase racial intolerance.
 
Stop. Your direct answer was sufficient. You do not need to try to justify their acts.

I understand your inability to actually address my arguments.
 
Back
Top Bottom