Part of Trump's pandering to the doom and gloom of the white lower class is there are some problems going on there.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...hite-americans

My post was pretty tone deaf and I can see why it would come off badly. I think the issue isn't that I'm a vile reactionary creep, but that I was being overly deferential to what I think would or would not be successful if challenged in court, rather than focusing on what I think the school should do. So let me backtrack.

The situation in Missouri seems pretty toxic and I think that students' right to an education is more important than other students' right to call them ni****. The school has a code of conduct that should be vigorously enforced, even at the risk of brushing up against First Amendment issues. I think it would be in the school's interest to say, "Our students' safety and right to learning comes first, and we will protect those rights vigorously. If you think that our protection of student rights violates your First Amendment rights to harrass them, we welcome your challenge in court." I don't think they should sit back and say, "Welp, nothing we can do about freedom of speech" as they watch their minority students experience more and more harassment.

All that being said, I still think it's a tough balancing act and I'm sure the University is going to take actions that I think go too far. But I'm not close to the situation in Missouri, am a white dude with no personal experience of racial discrimination/harassment, and I sure as hell don't like being on the same side as ikes and ogallalabob on this issue. So I'm sure my thoughts on this are going to evolve as I learn/think more about it.

ikes- You report posts here

Man, you guys really have absolutely nothing.

Heh, remember all the fuss over that frat or whatever that dressed up as injuns?

What do we need? What argument is even going on here?

Like, Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the GOP and future recipient of your vote for President, is suggesting people should boycott Starbucks because their winter cup redesign...

but oh look at these powerless random annoying college kids?

OK, let's look at them. They are powerless, random, and annoying. Is there a point coming from your side in the near future?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorg...apE#.qoMbvW6Zg


LOL racists are FURIOUS about... something here. I don't understand what has them all fired about Missouri. An organization leader was forced to resign due to perceived mismanagement. That happens everywhere, constantly.



Let's take a little wayback into Ben Shapiro's timeline, visit the halycon days of 17 minutes ago:



Playing the race card is "race hoaxing" but the Mizzou situation was a white guy fired for being white?

What is going on in Missouri and Yale is a clear abridgment of free speech. You stupidly argued that free speech wasn't applicable (nice law degree you got there), and now in order to distract from that really dumb argument, you're left personal attacks and abrupt topic changes.

As is standard for ikes, his argument is a chain email probably obtained from reddit or reason.

But like, huge shocker what side of the Missouri controversy ikes comes down on. JAQing off about "there must be more here, right?" and then ultimately determining that the real victims of all this racism are any nice white males that are improperly encouraged to call the police over hate speech, and that the football team WAS a bunch of SJWs. Nobody in the forum is surprised by this.

idk why but I always read this thread's title in the Fight Club tone of "His name is Robert Paulson"

what evidence do we have that the poop swastika actually existed?

Mizzou Police Arrest 19-Year-Old White Man for Threatening Black Students

Would hate to see what would happen to a Muslim if they did this.

Ikes standing up for the right to smear a swastika in ****. Missouri blacks should keep in their place when rednecks drive up to them and call them ******s.

Apparently we have been granting amnesty to illegals since forever, even during Operation Wet back

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/11/9714842/operation-*******

Apparently wet back is bleeped out. Good for the software.

phillll standing up for the right to assault photographers in public spaces

It's unclear who was initiating force, and in public property, without government subsidies to pay for and the 'right' to have thugs to beat people who intrude on a geographic area, you get people all bunching up, using their bodies to prevent someone access to something else. It's a pretty sound, libertarian, non aggressive, idea.

pvn not standing up for celebrities' rights to beat the **** out of obnoxious paparazzi in public spaces.

Yeah, except for how obvious it was that they were fighting back a strong urge to get physical and aggressive, and that it would take very little escalation for many to succumb to that urge.

Yea I should have been more specific in that the "sound" here refers to it being more libertarianish and less statist in some abstract sense, not the reality of having large amounts of protesters rabble around confronting people and then playing the "I'm not touching you" game as a pragmatic policy. I was being a bit sardonic.

Isn't it weird that the first reaction of the conservatard crowd is "Do we have any proof that anything racist ever happened???!??!?"

See fly, at least goofy came come up with a bunch of blatant lies.

I didn't argue that free speech wasn't applicable. I tried, gently, to get that guy to understand that not every consequence for speech is an infringement on your first amendment rights.

But OK.

What is going on in Missouri and Yale that are clear abridgments of free speech? I've followed both stories reasonably closely and the only thing that seems close is the protesters(since abandoned) request for media not to be on their protest site(which wasn't even really a 1A issue, the protesters arguably committed assault against that photographer, but they didn't censor him). What, exactly, are you angry about?

yea so shocking that the people with the capacity of noticing that the majority of outlandish claims originating from college campuses have been hoaxes now demand proof when another outlandish claim like the 'Poop Swasitika' or 'KKK marching through campus' before accepting it as gospel.

but very good use of the clever term 'consveratard' SCHU22. GREAT JOB!

This is what you posted to someone talking about 1st amendment protections fly. I don't think you know why it doesn't apply in your example but clearly does apply to costumes or SAE in OU. It'd be awfully strange if you did and yet made this post anyways. So is it ignorance or just asking questions fly?

Never fails to put ikes back in his place. It's like kryptonite