• 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

All I can think of is:

Freedom of Expression should always be encouraged...no matter how disgusting that expression is.
 
I know what kind of people lived in Alabama before the Civil War and now.

I see, so you really do believe because racist were in Alabama before the civil war and now that somehow means this whole fraternity , all 220+ chapters, is racist.

that's some bulletproof logic bro :lol:
 
I see, so you really do believe because racist were in Alabama before the civil war and now that somehow means this whole fraternity , all 220+ chapters, is racist.
that's some bulletproof logic bro :lol:



No, but I'm not surprised to see some racists in that outfit.
 
Yeah the national chapter was the quickest to act and shut them down on OU damn near immediately. I'm kind of torn. These kids are stupid and they definitely need to learn a stern lesson but I really don't want to see their lives destroyed for being stupid. I feel that most of us on here are just fortunate that we preceded the internet in our youth so our stupidity didn't get nationalized.

That being said, I can't believe people are in here defending them and excusing it away as free speech. People's reaction to it is free speech too. I just hope people can temper their reaction to it so that these kids learn their lesson but still have a future where they aren't so backed into a corner by opposition that they resist change out of spite and therefore DON'T learn a lesson.

Whenever I hear about frat-daddy nonsense, my first thought is "Sig Ep," but I don't think this one chapter's inexcusable behavior is representative of the nationwide fraternity. I also can't believe that in 2015, these kids didn't know better, but I'm with you: I hope there's a lesson learned.

Sigh, it's just that this lesson shouldn't have had to be learned.
 
All I can think of is:

Freedom of Expression should always be encouraged...no matter how disgusting that expression is.


See while I agree with that, there is always the grey area where you can't really fully support that either. Maybe they might be extreme cases, like say an abortion extremists preaching to school kids on a playground, but I cannot encourage that always or blindly - it's just not right.
 
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.

I can't understand what most of the 'death metal' musicians are saying but, pretty sure it has nothing to do with race.

Rap on the other hand, n---er, n---er, over and over. Whites are bad, over and over. Then there's. G damn, bitches, hoes. mofos and c--ts etc. over and over again.

I see a very limited vocabulary here.
 
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.

LMAO. Seriously? You're pretending that you knew he was talking about the university (not the fraternity), and you were "adding" something about the fraternity? Oh please...stop.

By the way - you have no more evidence that the university knew about and accepted racist behavior than you have of the national fraternity promoting this behavior. So even if I am supposed to believe that you were agreeing with him but "added something", you're still making slanderous accusations with zero evidence.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything with my posts. I'm calling you out on slanderous accusations that you can't back up. It's quite simple.
 
If this was a group of Muslim students chanting,
no Americans will ever be one of us,
praise ISIS, celebrate 9/11


would some of you still defend that as freedom of speech without repercussions or privacy laws? What would be the difference?

Of course. Why would you think that the First Amendment only applies to racist speech or speech from non-Muslims?
 
All I can think of is:

Freedom of Expression should always be encouraged...no matter how disgusting that expression is.
I somewhat agree but one has to live with the consequences of their words as well.
 
All I can think of is:

Freedom of Expression should always be encouraged...no matter how disgusting that expression is.

Agreed. That's why we have it. It works all ways, and both ways. I detest it when college students burn the American flag in protest, but I will defend their right to do it. I detest it when an artist protests religion by displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine, but I will defend his right to do it. And so on. You have to take the good with the bad if you really believe we have a right to free speech. You don't get to pick and choose.
 
I know what kind of people lived in Alabama before the Civil War and now.

What do the people who live in Alabama now have to do with this discussion? For that matter, what do the people who lived in Alabama in 1856 have to do with it?
 
Yeah the national chapter was the quickest to act and shut them down on OU damn near immediately. I'm kind of torn. These kids are stupid and they definitely need to learn a stern lesson but I really don't want to see their lives destroyed for being stupid. I feel that most of us on here are just fortunate that we preceded the internet in our youth so our stupidity didn't get nationalized.

That being said, I can't believe people are in here defending them and excusing it away as free speech. People's reaction to it is free speech too. I just hope people can temper their reaction to it so that these kids learn their lesson but still have a future where they aren't so backed into a corner by opposition that they resist change out of spite and therefore DON'T learn a lesson.

There are so many lessons to be learned from this. I always tell my kids to watch what they say/do because anything can be captured on video (and used against them). I also tell them to watch what they say on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and that other site....SnapChat or something? Same thing....once it's in writing, it's captured forever, like a video. And these things can be used against you for the rest of your life.

As far as the free speech aspect, that's exactly what it is. Not sure why you think it's crazy to defend it? I just posted some examples of things that offend me (and a lot of other people) but the ones who do it/say it have the right to do it/say it, no matter how offensive it may be. I'm actually surprised that more people aren't defending their right to free speech. You can't lose your right just because someone doesn't like it.

This all makes me think of the angst that happens on here when bakers decline to bake a cake for a gay couple. The same people who are outraged by these stupid kids singing a song they don't like are usually the first ones to go nuts over a baker refusing to engage in commerce with someone he doesn't like. He has to serve him, regardless of what he thinks of the gay lifestyle. Isn't that the argument, because the baker is serving the public? This was a public university that decided to expel 2 students because they didn't like what they said, and people applaud that. That to me is hyper-hypocritical.
 
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.





A note on this, can you post some of the lyrics and what the white kids are doing to mimic what they say?

lol
 
If this was a group of Muslim students chanting,
no Americans will ever be one of us,
praise ISIS, celebrate 9/11


would some of you still defend that as freedom of speech without repercussions or privacy laws? What would be the difference?



The patriot act, is the difference. ;)
 
Fraternities are ****ing stupid anyways.

Frat boys are stupid.

Frat chicks are stupid too.
 
This all makes me think of the angst that happens on here when bakers decline to bake a cake for a gay couple. The same people who are outraged by these stupid kids singing a song they don't like are usually the first ones to go nuts over a baker refusing to engage in commerce with someone he doesn't like. He has to serve him, regardless of what he thinks of the gay lifestyle. Isn't that the argument, because the baker is serving the public? This was a public university that decided to expel 2 students because they didn't like what they said, and people applaud that. That to me is hyper-hypocritical.

You're conflating two different things there. There is nothing wrong with being 'outraged' at racist speech, or sexist speech, or hate speech of any kind. We are all as free to condemn them publicly and loudly for that speech as they are free to utter it. The only issue is whether the 1st Amendment protects someone from the consequences of that. In this case, the only real issue seems to be whether OU (a public university) should/can expel them for the chant, and I looked and didn't find and can't otherwise recall anyone of any ideology actually expressing any kind of strong support for those kids being expelled, and lots of liberals have said they should not be expelled, which is also my own view. It also seems to be commonly accepted among constitutional lawyers, including the liberal ACLU as you pointed out, that OU cannot legally expel them for this incident - that their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment in this case.
 
Agreed. That's why we have it. It works all ways, and both ways. I detest it when college students burn the American flag in protest, but I will defend their right to do it. I detest it when an artist protests religion by displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine, but I will defend his right to do it. And so on. You have to take the good with the bad if you really believe we have a right to free speech. You don't get to pick and choose.


I'm going to hold you to that next time Obama says something you detest - to defend his right to say it. :2razz:



I think it's just such a slippery slope because I think certain things there is a limit to free speech. Like threatening, I mean you wouldn't stand for someone to stand in a public place and issue death threats against one of your son and blow if off as his right to do it, right? So it can't just work all ways, there has to be some kind of line or limit to what you can freely express, or no?
 
You're conflating two different things there. There is nothing wrong with being 'outraged' at racist speech, or sexist speech, or hate speech of any kind. We are all as free to condemn them publicly and loudly for that speech as they are free to utter it. The only issue is whether the 1st Amendment protects someone from the consequences of that. In this case, the only real issue seems to be whether OU (a public university) should/can expel them for the chant, and I looked and didn't find and can't otherwise recall anyone of any ideology actually expressing any kind of strong support for those kids being expelled, and lots of liberals have said they should not be expelled, which is also my own view. It also seems to be commonly accepted among constitutional lawyers, including the liberal ACLU as you pointed out, that OU cannot legally expel them for this incident - that their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment in this case.

Nobody said people weren't allowed to condemn them publicly and loudly.

The university is a public space. And a government entity. Because of that, they shouldn't have been expelled IMO (and as you said, you and others feel as I do). If UO is a public space (which it is), they should have to be forced to serve the public (these stupid kids) the same as other public services need to serve the public, no matter how they feel about it or the people.
 
You're conflating two different things there. There is nothing wrong with being 'outraged' at racist speech, or sexist speech, or hate speech of any kind. We are all as free to condemn them publicly and loudly for that speech as they are free to utter it. The only issue is whether the 1st Amendment protects someone from the consequences of that. In this case, the only real issue seems to be whether OU (a public university) should/can expel them for the chant, and I looked and didn't find and can't otherwise recall anyone of any ideology actually expressing any kind of strong support for those kids being expelled, and lots of liberals have said they should not be expelled, which is also my own view. It also seems to be commonly accepted among constitutional lawyers, including the liberal ACLU as you pointed out, that OU cannot legally expel them for this incident - that their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment in this case.

It's all good with me if they don't get kicked out of school. That would be a First Amendment thing inasmuch as a state university is a governmental thing.

To have their frat disbanded and disowned by the national organization is enough and fitting.
 
I'm going to hold you to that next time Obama says something you detest - to defend his right to say it. :2razz:



I think it's just such a slippery slope because I think certain things there is a limit to free speech. Like threatening, I mean you wouldn't stand for someone to stand in a public place and issue death threats against one of your son and blow if off as his right to do it, right? So it can't just work all ways, there has to be some kind of line or limit to what you can freely express, or no?

It isn't a slippery slope. And death threats or any other kinds of threats aren't protected by the First Amendment.
 
It's all good with me if they don't get kicked out of school. That would be a First Amendment thing inasmuch as a state university is a governmental thing.

To have their frat disbanded and disowned by the national organization is enough and fitting.

Nicely summed up. +10
 
Come to think of it, the Democrat Party was also founded in the South before the Civil War. We should probably think about that a little bit, too.

Why don't you just admit that you don't know anything about history. And that you have nothing but insults to throw around.

Interestingly, if you look at what the Democratic Party stood for at it's founding, it's many of the same principles that the Republican Party stands for today - weak Federal government, stricter adherance to the Constitution, States rights. The party that fueled the biggest expansion of the power of the Federal government was the Republican party after the Civil War. At the time and up until about WWI, the Republican Party was in fact far and away the more "progressive" of the two.

I imagine that if this was 1915, you'd be a Democrat and all the "progressives" you decry and insult would be Republicans.
 
It isn't a slippery slope. And death threats or any other kinds of threats aren't protected by the First Amendment.

Ah but if you take threats as exception:

"you can hang them from a tree"


If you say you can hang someone or a group of individuals from a tree is that or is it not a threat?
 
Back
Top Bottom