Page 4 of 16 [ 244 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,988
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2015, 7:46 pm

Fnord wrote:
I think those frat boys have great futures ahead of them as Republicans ...

... or garbage collectors ...

... but I repeat myself.


As garbage collectors are unionized, I doubt you'd find many Republicans among them.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,988
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2015, 7:51 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Even though yes, it is the alumni in OK that hired the attorney, it still might be a good idea to let the fraternity know your opinion. The attorney was not hired by SAE but the fraternity might still have influence on their alumni and it can look like the attorney was hired by the actual fraternity. At first, everyone thought it was SAE who hired Stephen Jones.


"Oklahoma could make a decent argument that the students’ chant created a hostile educational environment and was thus unprotected speech, but these scholars are likely correct as a predictive matter. If this situation were litigated before the current Supreme Court, the students would almost certainly win".

"The frat boys’ howls are reminiscent of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” protests near military funerals, which the Supreme Court protected a few years ago".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ch/387718/

The school needs to pay up for what it did to these kids. I would think it would be embarrassing for the university to lose in court, and find out that they don't even know the basics of the law. How can they even be a university when they won't even protect the free speech of their students ?


I thought the SAE frat had specific rules their member houses had to obey, or face expulsion from the organization. And if the fraternity tosses these KKK-members-minus-their-sheets out, what reason do they have to occupy a house on campus?
Yes, I know that doesn't exactly address the matter at hand about booting the students out of the university, but it's a start.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Last edited by Kraichgauer on 13 Mar 2015, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

13 Mar 2015, 7:54 pm

Another article:
Univ. of Oklahoma expulsions infringe free speech rights, experts say
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... s-say.html

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
They will demand action against everyone else but want to be allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how hostile. Isn't it time people grew the f up and practiced the golden rule?


If you allow this to stand, then we have many others to boot out too ...

-I don't like Muslims because they make me uncomfortable, time for those Muslims to learn the golden rule and shut up about their religion or be kicked out!

-I don't like people speaking in languages I don't know, time for them to learn the golden rule and shut up speaking other languages or be kicked out!

Where does this end ? You can always find people who don't like what other people say. So say goodbye to most of the students at the University of Oklahoma.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Mar 2015, 8:06 pm

Last I checked, there wasn't any golden rule on the books, but the 1st amendment still applies.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

13 Mar 2015, 8:07 pm

Umm just for us non-americans, could you, like, explain things like SAE in future. From your post, I interpreted it as a fraternity thing, so I Googled SAE fraternity and got the answer. So, if you're worried about excluding black people, what about excluding the rest of the world too? :mrgreen:


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 8:15 pm

Last I checked saying you can hang someone from a tree isn't religion, exactly.
And best be careful what you wish for because you do realize, if they can say whatever they want, same goes for everyone and they won't really like being harassed on a daily basis, will they? You need to decide what kind of environment you want for yourself because what you want for yourself, others will have as well and they can turn it around on you. So which is better, to have an environment where people cannot learn because they are too busy harassing one another or a nice shush up so people can obtain their education?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 8:18 pm

Narrator wrote:
Umm just for us non-americans, could you, like, explain things like SAE in future. From your post, I interpreted it as a fraternity thing, so I Googled SAE fraternity and got the answer. So, if you're worried about excluding black people, what about excluding the rest of the world too? :mrgreen:

They should have the pants sued off of them for excluding WOMEN! If we are talking lawsuits, I dare NOW to sue the pants off all these sexist fraternities. Do it!



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

13 Mar 2015, 8:23 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I thought the SAE frat had specific rules their member houses had to obey, or face expulsion from the organization. And if the fraternity tosses these KKK-members-minus-their-sheets out, what reason do they have to occupy a house on campus?
Yes, I know that doesn't exactly address the matter at hand about booting the students out of the university, but it's a start.


no reason, but as you say, that is not the matter at hand

they were immediately expelled from the university



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 8:29 pm

Considering what that fraternity has become on campus, they should shut it down. It has degraded into a cancer, this coming from the National Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Where there's a little smoke there's bound to be some fire. They seem to be aware of what is going on here, the "culture" that has lingered and the faculty at OU has seen the video and determined AFTER investigating, those two students merited removal from the college.

So listen to the what Sigma Alpha Epsilon is telling us, something is foul in their OU chapter, let them close it down a few years then they will most likely be back but they have to weed out this culture that has permeated the chapter and doesn't seem to be dissipating. I say let the university and the fraternity handle the matter. It really is not the business of the alumni at all unless we are talking the alumni who started that chant.

OU is where I went to college, btw.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 8:39 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Even though yes, it is the alumni in OK that hired the attorney, it still might be a good idea to let the fraternity know your opinion. The attorney was not hired by SAE but the fraternity might still have influence on their alumni and it can look like the attorney was hired by the actual fraternity. At first, everyone thought it was SAE who hired Stephen Jones.


"Oklahoma could make a decent argument that the students’ chant created a hostile educational environment and was thus unprotected speech, but these scholars are likely correct as a predictive matter. If this situation were litigated before the current Supreme Court, the students would almost certainly win".

"The frat boys’ howls are reminiscent of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” protests near military funerals, which the Supreme Court protected a few years ago".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ch/387718/

The school needs to pay up for what it did to these kids. I would think it would be embarrassing for the university to lose in court, and find out that they don't even know the basics of the law. How can they even be a university when they won't even protect the free speech of their students ?


I thought the SAE frat had specific rules their member houses had to obey, or face expulsion from the organization. And if the fraternity tosses these KKK-members-minus-their-sheets out, what reason do they have to occupy a house on campus?
Yes, I know that doesn't exactly address the matter at hand about booting the students out of the university, but it's a start.


The local chapter has become a hate organization. The national organization has determined this and they pulled the plug on SAE at University of Oklahoma but never fear. I am sure they will be back before long, a few years at the most. They are making an effort to get a hold of things then they will be back.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,988
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2015, 8:44 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Last I checked, there wasn't any golden rule on the books, but the 1st amendment still applies.


The first amendment applies to the government, not to private organizations that have set rules about acceptable speech and behavior.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 8:46 pm

Just the fact the Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon Alumni hired STEPHEN JONES to represent them against OU REALLY says a lot about who is involved in this alumni, don't it?

These people are just begging for drama.


It's quickly turning into a situation involving the individual v. the government, in this case, the University is the government and soon we are going to hear the alumni talk about how it was a set up and the world is against their fraternity. They will make it look like the fraternity members are somehow victims although they were the ones chanting it just happened to get captured on someone's phone.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

13 Mar 2015, 9:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Last I checked, there wasn't any golden rule on the books, but the 1st amendment still applies.


The first amendment applies to the government, not to private organizations that have set rules about acceptable speech and behavior.


Image

Image

1st amendment applies to the people, and their national right, and it cannot be taken away arbitrarily by some private organization or even a public university.



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 13 Mar 2015, 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 9:39 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Last I checked, there wasn't any golden rule on the books, but the 1st amendment still applies.


The first amendment applies to the government, not to private organizations that have set rules about acceptable speech and behavior.


Image

Image

Hmm what would Jefferson have done to the man who had the you-know-whats to come up to him and say he should be hung in the highest tree? Do you really want an environment where people are so angry they are literally beating the you-know-what out of each other? The university has a right to put the kibosh on such murmurings for the sake of higher education. Protests are allowed so if this fraternity has something to protest about races, then so be it. Let them ask permission and go protest whatever it is they feel needs protesting.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

13 Mar 2015, 9:55 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hmm what would Jefferson have done to the man who had the you-know-whats to come up to him and say he should be hung in the highest tree?


Don't know, however, as a black slave owner, that reportedly used violence against his slaves for disobedience, he would probably empathize with "hung from the highest tree".

"According to the historian Lucia Stanton, Jefferson authorized his overseers to use physical violence against the slaves, though probably not as much as some of his neighbors. Jame Hubbard was a slave in the nailery who ran away on two occasions. The first time Jefferson did not have him whipped, but on the second Jefferson reportedly ordered him severely flogged".

"Violence was commonplace on plantations, including Jefferson's.[105] According to Marguerite Hughes, Jefferson used 'a severe punishment' like whippings when runaways were captured, and he sometimes sold them to "discourage other men and women from attempting to gain their freedom."[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jef ... nd_slavery



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Mar 2015, 10:08 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hmm what would Jefferson have done to the man who had the you-know-whats to come up to him and say he should be hung in the highest tree?


Don't know, however, as a black slave owner, that reportedly used violence against his slaves for disobedience, he would probably empathize with "hung from the highest tree".

"According to the historian Lucia Stanton, Jefferson authorized his overseers to use physical violence against the slaves, though probably not as much as some of his neighbors. Jame Hubbard was a slave in the nailery who ran away on two occasions. The first time Jefferson did not have him whipped, but on the second Jefferson reportedly ordered him severely flogged".

"Violence was commonplace on plantations, including Jefferson's.[105] According to Marguerite Hughes, Jefferson used 'a severe punishment' like whippings when runaways were captured, and he sometimes sold them to "discourage other men and women from attempting to gain their freedom."[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jef ... nd_slavery


Then how can you use Jefferson in this context, period? How can you say he even applies to the here and now. As we know, slavery was abolished.

I can tell you this much, if a slave said that to Jefferson, which, according to you, he had every right under freedom of speech, Jefferson would have beat the crap out of him, not personally but would have had one of his indentured servants, the other slaves do it for him. So you see, his mumblings on the matter hardly concern me because he was certainly against freedom. How can you even bring him into this? How can a man who is clearly so against fundamental freedom on the most basest level speak for any of us now? Answer? He doesn't. He cannot. What he says doesn't apply to his reality in the slightest. He was an oppressor. He had no idea of what true freedom actually is. He obviously has no concept. If he did, he would have turned every slave loose and demand it be abolished then and there. So, I in all sincerity, I don't give an ant's behind what Thomas Jefferson says about freedom.