Oklahoma Frat Shut Down - Racist Chant

[Kabal]

You let this kind of stuff get out then you deserve the repercussions.

Blame it on the girl all you want but hoes gonna be hoes. It's on you to keep stuff in house.

Yes--

1. The moment a non-fraternity member is present, you are effectively in public.
2. Sloots gonna sloot

This fraternity definitely failed the Jumbotron Test, to say the least.

 

[alexdagr81]

I'm actually less upset about the racism and more upset about the ignorance and lack of self-awareness. These dudes should know from watching Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin that the media is obsessed with race. They also be well aware that women are snitches (I have no doubt the person filming it was a girl). When you drop those two fetters to be an idiot I have hard time having pity for you, drunk or not.

 

[Chewbacon]

Not to anyone in particular, but would your views on this "story" be different if the chant were about women instead of blacks?

If so, you're playing the "Who? Whom?" identity politics feelings-game and not operating off of first principles and consistency.

No.

I have no hatred towards women. Game and red pill enables me to recognize women are capable of horrible, evil things, just like any other human being. It de-pedestalizes them. That doesn't automatically make them by definition monsters. It just makes them regular human beings - complex, flawed creatures. If a group of dudes starting chanting they'd rather see women burn than join their organization, it would be equally reprehensible. And if we turned it around and it the targets were white men? Same reaction.

 

[bacan]

Scorpion is one of the posters whose posts always get extra attention from me, but it is unsettling to see him and many others trying to fit this into some narrative of the evil political correctness campaign persecuting us helpless white men..

Uh... These dudes memorized a racist song that included ugly slurs and a reference to lynching blacks then they were stupid enough to get caught on video singing it.

Of course these actions are all justified. They put their university and their national chapter into a position where they looked terrible and had to cover their asses. So they did.

No one is sending these kids to jail. But if you want to live in a multicultural society you probably shouldn't memorize songs about "hanging n*ggers from trees" and sing them when your drunken dumbass dates are around to capture it on their smart phones.

 

[Wadsworth]

yeah, i'm not really finding the extreme-PC narrative on this story all that compelling. Okay, the university is punishing them as a chapter, but it's well within its prerogative to not sponsor racist organizations. They can dictate how they want their image to be constructed and whom they want to associate with. Dis-association is also free speech too.

Is their faux-outrage? I have no sympathy for racist people. We aren't taking away their constitutional rights, and they aren't getting expelled.

Look, nobody is blind to the fact that everybody's a little racist (or a lot). But there's nothing wrong with societal norms that force us to keep it to ourselves. You want to have a creepy fetish? Fine, keep it to yourself. Don't bother us with it. You want to hate on jews, asians, and blacks? Fine, do it in the privacy of your own home. You have the legal right to say whatever you want, but that shouldn't shield you from social consequences.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

The frat is associated with the university? I didn't see anything about federal government involvement. If there is, that's crossing the line. I have no problem with the university controlling which organizations it wants to sponsor, fund, and facilitate on its campus. If you don't get sponsorship, it just means you don't get its support - there's no prohibition on you starting a non-affiliated organization. Nobody is stopping you from starting your own kkk chapter in the collegetown.

Playing devil's advocate here. Are those universities state or federal funded to any degree? If so, those are public funds and the universities are not rightly seen as private institutions imbued with the right to make these sort of decisions for themselves.

But more to the point, if you believe this then you evidently don't find your earlier argument persuasive. You either allow individuals freedom to speak and associate voluntarily and accept and embrace what comes of that, or you favor some level of coercion from some governing body. Just so we're clear coercion from a central authority isn't "social consequences."

The biggest problem with this isn't that it's censorious, it's that the censorship isn't evenly meted out. These are the same campuses where white people are castigated for being privileged.

 

[scorpion]

We are not buying any culture of victimhood. No one here cried.

Maybe not you or guys here, but the internet and media are full of crocodile tears over this story. All fake. No one is really crying, they just go along with the charade of feigning offense and outrage because that's the dominant social narrative that they've been propagandized to support.

No minority complained about not being admitted in that fraternity.

Exactly. So who the fuck cares about a "no niggers" chant if no black guys even wanted to join in the first place?

No minority complained about not getting the same treatment by administration, or other students on campus as those white guys.

True. And again, where is the problem, then? This just proves that drunk white guys singing a racist song on a private bus means absolutely nothing and has zero consequences on any black people, anywhere.

On the pretext of free speech you expect us to allow others to call us however they want?

Yes. That's how free speech works. Feel free to respond to him however you'd like, as that is your right. But if you are going to "call out racism" and whatnot, be prepared for someone to call you out for faux-outrage if it's obvious you aren't really even upset about it at all.

Because free speech is in the constitution, when someone calls me nigger I should just shut up and let him procede?

Who is calling you a nigger? Random frat boys on a private bus in Oklahoma? Do you really feel personally aggrieved when watching this grainy cell phone video? You take this song as a personal racial attack? I seriously doubt you are that sensitive.

What I notice is that you very often use the "evil white men" card on the forum, and draw a distinct line between white men and the minorities. Why do that? Aren't we all brothers?

I draw much less distinction between white men and minorities than progressives and SJWs do. I merely speak out against white men being vilified as the root of all evil, which is the dominant cultural narrative of the day.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Mikado, singing a racist song isn't a crime. Killing a guy with hammers miles from where I used to live, and the people who do it admit it was because he was white, and the story gets no press, that is a crime. Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot. O, and by the way, it was a Muslim white.

 

[Steve Evets]

Feeling outrage over this only makes sense if you believe we live in a magic world in which these sort of unsavory sentiments don't exist. I say that because these kids were on a private bus among themselves, and not in public chanting this, or heckling black students in any way. Had they been doing that, I'd have little issue with them being shut down.

From the vantage point of the country as a whole, this is essentially Orwellian thoughtcrime at work. If not for the smartphone, no one outside those on the bus would have known it happened at all. Now privy to their 'thoughts,' the popular view is to punish them because those thoughts are unsavory. That doesn't sit well with me, even though I find their chant terrible. Same thing with Donald Sterling. He said things in a private conversation, and the end result of that action alone was the loss of his basketball team, despite his comments not being indicative of racial discrimination in his operations of the team.

Just like with Sterling, I'm seeing a lot of justification of the actions against the fraternity, up to and including expulsion of its members, based on that old canard 'you have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences!!!' Fair enough, but when you say something stupid, the consequences are people thinking you are an idiot with stupid views. The consequences should not be you lose your employment/education and/or are ostracized from society. That they effectively are is down to politically correct framing of thought to the point that you have freedom of speech (as long as it's on message).

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

The problem is this was not in the "privacy of their own homes." They were, I am assuming, using an organization sanctioned bus to attend some kind of organization sancitoned event. That organization is associated with, and sponsored by, the school. The school has every right to distance itself from this. It would be the same if one of the networking clubs at my company decided to do this during company time. This is not private.

(Contrast this with singing the same racist chant inside your own apartment ie. a non-frat house, non-university dorm).

Look, maybe the university is covering its ass, and maybe the national chapter is doing the same thing. I doubt either actually gives a fuck about black people. But the point to be reinforced is - you have a right to be a racist. But don't involve us in your racism, and keep it to yourself.

Well the chant is organization specific - it would only ever be chanted in that setting, whether it was a sanctioned bus, or inside their fraternity house.

My point still stands, there is a difference between an offensive chant, and discriminatory behavior. The former becomes the latter when directed at specific individuals, but it wasn't in this case. I'm arguing that beyond thinking these kids are idiots, and choosing as an individual not to associate with them, nothing else is really warranted.

I'm particularly disappointed in the OU football and basketball teams cancelling practice today over this. That just sends the message to the players that this nonsense is worth disrupting their ostensible quest for greatness. Instead of taking the position that bad things happen, and life is full of possible roadblocks that need to be cleared, they take the feminine position that the goals they are working toward must be stopped on a dime because of a group of their peers saying dumb things.

It looks like it was mostly the decision of the players, not the coaches. Even if the coaches made practice mandatory, I think the players still would've protested against the Frat.

I didn't know it was a players decision. In that case, the message I described comes naturally to them. That might be worse.

 

[J DOE]

Not to anyone in particular, but would your views on this "story" be different if the chant were about women instead of blacks?

In the song they reference killing and hanging black people from trees. If they were singing about violently gang raping/killing women I would be just as against it, and I assume everyone else would.

 

[mikado]

Mikado, singing a racist song isn't a crime. Killing a guy with hammers miles from where I used to live, and the people who do it admit it was because he was white, and the story gets no press, that is a crime. Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot. O, and by the way, it was a Muslim white.

I am done with you.

 

[Chewbacon]

Just so we're clear, what exactly are social consequences?

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

The frat is associated with the university? I didn't see anything about federal government involvement. If there is, that's crossing the line. I have no problem with the university controlling which organizations it wants to sponsor, fund, and facilitate on its campus. If you don't get sponsorship, it just means you don't get its support - there's no prohibition on you starting a non-affiliated organization. Nobody is stopping you from starting your own kkk chapter in the collegetown.

Playing devil's advocate here. Are those universities state or federal funded to any degree? If so, those are public funds and the universities are not rightly seen as private institutions imbued with the right to make these sort of decisions for themselves.

But more to the point, if you believe this then you evidently don't find your earlier argument persuasive. You either allow individuals freedom to speak and associate voluntarily and accept and embrace what comes of that, or you favor some level of coercion from some governing body. Just so we're clear coercion from a central authority isn't "social consequences."

The biggest problem with this isn't that it's censorious, it's that the censorship isn't evenly meted out. These are the same campuses where white people are castigated for being privileged.

Let's take this point by point. If the universities are purely private (ie. no state funding) then my point stands. If the national frat is a purely private (ie. no state funding), then again my point stands. Sure, there are "central governing bodies," but not in the sense that they are public to the taxpayer - more akin to corporate boards of directors.

If the universities are not purely private ie. State-funded universities, that doesn't mean they can't control what is expressed on their own behalf, or associated with them. What, you think a state university is required to let neo-nazis form a branch on their campus and is required to sponsor them? You think a state university has to sanction all forms of expression associated with it? Of course not. State universities have discretion. Constitutionally, all they must do is clear the loose hurdle of "being rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Not having the state-funded public university be associated with racism clears that hurdle. And that's if you classify the public university as a government institution. Remember, being a government funded institution is not the same as being a government institution. The local public library is a government funded institution - that doesn't prohibit it from not carrying porn on its shelves.

The only time when the speech of these frat boys is and ought to be protected is when they are facing legal consequences. They are not here. Nobody is arresting them, and no government authority is fining them.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Its obvious you don't give two shits about the fact that most racial crime in America is directed against whites. The fact you chose to jump into this thread to make a point about how whites are getting away with being racists just shows you hate white people.

 

[DrewP]

Mikado, singing a racist song isn't a crime.

And suspending a fraternity chapter isn't a criminal punishment.

Killing a guy with hammers miles from where I used to live, and the people who do it admit it was because he was white, and the story gets no press, that is a crime. Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot. O, and by the way, it was a Muslim white.

I don't think anyone here has denied that the media shows an obvious agenda constantly hyping racism while downplaying reprehensible things done by black people, correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't mean people can't be outraged about both this AND examples of black-on-white racism.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Mikado denied it. Thats why I made my point.

 

[mikado]

Mikado denied it. Thats why I made my point.

Give me the exact quote where I did this.

 

[DrewP]

Mikado said this:

Ok medias do not portray racism fairly.

OK, they tend to forget some crimes made my black men, Muslims, or whatever you want that's mostly Non-White.

How does that excuse what the few white men that were busted commiting the same acts?

You can complain about the way that medias treat the information. However it doesn't mean any less that crimes commited by white men must be excused.

And using free speech and the right to say whatever you want in private does not make your ideas less nauseous if they are, effectively.

Doesn't sound like denial of anything to me.

 

[Wadsworth]

Other people not wanting to be associated with you? People who are associated with you distancing themselves from you? Those are all voluntary social actions by people acting on their own prerogative.

I mean, imagine this were another frat that was mixed-ethnicity, and you found out that some of their white members were singing some racist chant on a chartered frat bus going to a frat event. A reasonable social consequence would be that the minority frat members pushing to dis-associate the frat from these guys, or expelling them from the frat. If you're going to be a reprehensible human being, there are going to be lots of people who don't want to be around you.

Then why is action on the part of university or state/federal governments necessary?

The frat is associated with the university? I didn't see anything about federal government involvement. If there is, that's crossing the line. I have no problem with the university controlling which organizations it wants to sponsor, fund, and facilitate on its campus. If you don't get sponsorship, it just means you don't get its support - there's no prohibition on you starting a non-affiliated organization. Nobody is stopping you from starting your own kkk chapter in the collegetown.

Playing devil's advocate here. Are those universities state or federal funded to any degree? If so, those are public funds and the universities are not rightly seen as private institutions imbued with the right to make these sort of decisions for themselves.

But more to the point, if you believe this then you evidently don't find your earlier argument persuasive. You either allow individuals freedom to speak and associate voluntarily and accept and embrace what comes of that, or you favor some level of coercion from some governing body. Just so we're clear coercion from a central authority isn't "social consequences."

The biggest problem with this isn't that it's censorious, it's that the censorship isn't evenly meted out. These are the same campuses where white people are castigated for being privileged.

Let's take this point by point. If the universities are purely private (ie. no state funding) then my point stands. If the national frat is a purely private (ie. no state funding), then again my point stands. Sure, there are "central governing bodies," but not in the sense that they are public to the taxpayer - more akin to corporate boards of directors.

If the universities are not purely private ie. State-funded universities, that doesn't mean they can't control what is expressed on their own behalf, or associated with them. What, you think a state university is required to let neo-nazis form a branch on their campus and is required to sponsor them? You think a state university has to sanction all forms of expression associated with it? Of course not. State universities have discretion. Constitutionally, all they must do is clear the loose hurdle of "being rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Not having the state-funded public university be associated with racism clears that hurdle. And that's if you classify the public university as a government institution. Remember, being a government funded institution is not the same as being a government institution. The local public library is a government funded institution - that doesn't prohibit it from not carrying porn on its shelves.

The only time when the speech of these frat boys is and ought to be protected is when they are facing legal consequences. They are not here. Nobody is arresting them, and no government authority is fining them.

You're making this more complicated than is required. We don't need to go very far down the amendments to the American constitution to find the answer; it's in the very first one. The government is not entitled to prohibit the exercise of speech of any kind. So long as the university receives public funding it should not move to censor individuals, however distasteful their speech, because that would constitute government-sponsored censorship.

If the university is purely private and is 100% dependent on private funding sources, then I agree, they have every right to do as they see fit, however incomprehensible and hypocritical.

 

[KorbenDallas]

"The race doesn't matter here. I am sure if these chants were directed against white men it still would have been the same result for the perpretators."

If this was a chant by a black fraternity it wouldn't even make the local news. Blacks are racist on camera all the time. In Ferguson they were on camera saying all white people are the devil shortly after a white was brutally killed with a hammer.

 

[Bones707]

Spare me your outrage you anti white bigot.

LOL!!

The hamster is strong in this one.

:malehamster:

 

[KorbenDallas]

If a black fraternity was taped saying white men should be hanged there would be zero repercussions.