Oklahoma fraternity being persecuted by PC Police

[untermensche]

That's a good question; Should property rights trump the freedom of speech?

I don't think they should.

You need to put some qualifications on that.

I'm not sure what you mean but how much does a person have to own before they are allowed to limit the speech of other people?

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not really talking about property rights - I'm talking about my right to earn a living and therefore survive. I'm talking about my right not to be verbally abused while on my own property. Do you think one person's "free speech" supersedes every other right of every other person?

This is a terrible scenario because it involves some person doing something nobody does or at least nobody without schizophrenia does.

But would you restrict the right of people to picket in front of businesses and try to persuade people not to use those businesses?

So you are going to evade my question?

In your ideal world, do I or do I not have the right to bar someone from the inside of my premises if that person is using hateful, hurtful, abusive speech that is causing me emotional and/or financial harm?

 

[NobleSavage]

You need to put some qualifications on that.

I'm not sure what you mean but how much does a person have to own before they are allowed to limit the speech of other people?

It's not so much how much property a person owns, but (and I really, really hate to use this trite expression) the false dichotomy you have presented. You have set up a perfect abstraction for a debate, but real life gets complicated. Just think about a scenario where your property is being damaged by free speech. If you want to get very abstract and weird we should look at intellectual property.

 

[untermensche]

This is a terrible scenario because it involves some person doing something nobody does or at least nobody without schizophrenia does.

But would you restrict the right of people to picket in front of businesses and try to persuade people not to use those businesses?

So you are going to evade my question?

In your ideal world, do I or do I not have the right to bar someone from the inside of my premises if that person is using hateful, hurtful, abusive speech that is causing me emotional and/or financial harm?

You are barring entrance not speech.

I assume the barred person can speak as freely as they want.

 

[Axulus]

So you are going to evade my question?

In your ideal world, do I or do I not have the right to bar someone from the inside of my premises if that person is using hateful, hurtful, abusive speech that is causing me emotional and/or financial harm?

You are barring entrance not speech.

I assume the barred person can speak as freely as they want.

But what if you bar them entry _because_ of words they have spoken (as the University is doing?)

 

[untermensche]

I'm not sure what you mean but how much does a person have to own before they are allowed to limit the speech of other people?

It's not so much how much property a person owns, but (and I really, really hate to use this trite expression) the false dichotomy you have presented. You have set up a perfect abstraction for a debate, but real life gets complicated. Just think about a scenario where your property is being damaged by free speech. If you want to get very abstract and weird we should look at intellectual property.

I say it is you that wants to wallow in abstraction.

Property is something humans own.

Speech is something humans do.

Should a possession trump human expression?

If so which possessions?

 

[untermensche]

You are barring entrance not speech.

I assume the barred person can speak as freely as they want.

But what if you bar them entry _because_ of words they have spoken (as the University is doing?)

These people were already accepted at the University. They were already granted entrance.

The University is punishing speech, not barring entrance.

 

[NobleSavage]

It's not so much how much property a person owns, but (and I really, really hate to use this trite expression) the false dichotomy you have presented. You have set up a perfect abstraction for a debate, but real life gets complicated. Just think about a scenario where your property is being damaged by free speech. If you want to get very abstract and weird we should look at intellectual property.

I say it is you that wants to wallow in abstraction.

Property is something humans own.

Speech is something humans do.

Should a possession trump human expression?

If so which possessions?

Ok, I'm make up some specifics. I'm the laziest poster on this forum so don't expect much.

A) You own a strip club and someone comes in and starts calling the girls bitches, sluts, and whores. You would kick them out. This is something that happens.

B) You own a bar and some drunk comes in starts instigating a fight with her words. You would kick her out to prevent a brawl. This happens.

C) You own a website like TFT and someone keeps posting scat pictures. You would ban them. This happens.

 

[untermensche]

A) You own a strip club and someone comes in and starts calling the girls bitches, sluts, and whores. You would kick them out. This is something that happens.

This is the best show these places can provide.

I would encourage it.

B) You own a bar and some drunk comes in starts instigating a fight with her words. You would kick her out to prevent a brawl. This happens.

You would be dealing with drunkenness, not speech. I don't think people who are drunk should be allowed to do whatever they want. They are temporarily insane.

C) You own a website like TFT and someone keeps posting scat pictures. You would ban them. This happens.

To call that speech is as bad as calling money speech.

 

[repoman]

I saw a picture once of a very obese woman on all fours covered in shit and vomiting. It was a revelation.

 

[NobleSavage]

This is the best show these places can provide.

I would encourage it.

You obviously don't know shit about the strip club biz. If you allowed this, the girls would go work at another club. Guys go to a strip club to get their dicks hard, not to watch a spectacle. You want the guys to have sex on the brain so they don't think about blowing a lot of cash. You want the strippers to flirt with the guys and ask them to buy drinks (that is where the money is). If you want to put on a show you bring in a pornstar.

B) You own a bar and some drunk comes in starts instigating a fight with her words. You would kick her out to prevent a brawl. This happens.

You would be dealing with drunkenness, not speech. I don't think people who are drunk should be allowed to do whatever they want. They are temporarily insane.

So at what BAC does this kick in? Before you kick someone out, do you need to check their BAC? You are running a business, you don't have time for this shit. If someone gets hurt you are gonna get your ass sued.

C) You own a website like TFT and someone keeps posting scat pictures. You would ban them. This happens.

To call that speech is as bad as calling money speech.

Fine, replace scat with something else. I'm sure RayJ can give examples. This is his site and if he wants to ban someone that is his prerogative.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'll give a real life example of the bar scenario. There is a bar at the end of my street. I'd say most people there legally drunk. I was there and some girl smiled at me, I'm a flirt, so I smiled back. Next thing I know her boyfriend was yelling at me and saying he was gonna beat my ass. The owner of the bar kicked him out.

 

[Toni]

You are barring entrance not speech.

I assume the barred person can speak as freely as they want.

But what if you bar them entry _because_ of words they have spoken (as the University is doing?)

Hang on a minute there. Are you telling me that if a university bars from campus someone who threatens to shoot up the place or to set bombs or to poison the drinking water in the administration building, the university wouldn't be justified in barring that person from campus?

What if someone stands on the front steps of the student union and talks about how disgusting gay people are and that they should be sent to re-education camps or prison or tortured until they change their minds or castrated or whatever?

Would the university be justified in banning that person?

What if someone stands on the steps of the student union and calls for the violent overthrow of the government?

What if someone stands on the steps of the student union and shouts that women are whores and shouldn't be allowed to attend classes but should be kept home learning women things like cooking and child-rearing?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if someone stands on the steps of the student union and shouts that women are whores and shouldn't be allowed to attend classes but should be kept home learning women things like cooking and child-rearing?

Well, to be fair to that guy, if the women had been at home in the first place, they wouldn't have been at the student union building to hear him and get all offended about what he was saying. It's kind of their own damn fault and it would be out of line for them to blame this other guy.

 

[Nexus]

Still waiting for an answer from the pro-expelling group here, should Christian colleges be allowed to expel students for saying vile things like homosexuality is not an abomination or admitting to being gay yet showing no repentance for it? That kind of speech is offensive to some people.

 

[NobleSavage]

But what if you bar them entry _because_ of words they have spoken (as the University is doing?)

Hang on a minute there. Are you telling me that if a university bars from campus someone who threatens to shoot up the place or to set bombs or to poison the drinking water in the administration building, the university wouldn't be justified in barring that person from campus?

They would be justified here.

What if someone stands on the front steps of the student union and talks about how disgusting gay people are and that they should be sent to re-education camps or prison or tortured until they change their minds or castrated or whatever?

I'm cool with this, depending on the place. College campuses should be bastions of free speech. Most universities have a space similar to Speakers' Corner. If someone wants to go there and spew hate and filth, ok. They will just get heckled.

What if someone stands on the steps of the student union and calls for the violent overthrow of the government?

I'm ok with this up to the point where they start taking action. (I know I'll get shit for this. I really need to think through the details. I just feel a country that was founded on a violent revolution should give some leeway to revolutionaries.)

What if someone stands on the steps of the student union and shouts that women are whores and shouldn't be allowed to attend classes but should be kept home learning women things like cooking and child-rearing?

I'm ok with this as long as it is in a designated area.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

what makes you ask the question? When has there ever been some group labeled Angry Black People who spend way too much time whining about why they can't say hateful things about white people? Be careful how you answer. You mean a Step Show? You may find this amazing, but black Greeks really don't spends alot of time making up or handing down generation after generation anti-white people chants. And steps shows are about putting other black frats in the dozens, not white people.

IOW, to whom it may concern, it ain't all about y'all.

Well, the black frats normally don't own their own houses. They would reserve a large room in the student union. The interesting thing is, I worked at the student union and had a front row seat to all of their parties. I've never heard so much "murder", "kill", "rape", and vile shit in my life. "Step Show" and "Step Party" were kinda interchangeable.



It was illegal to have alcohol on university property -- the black frats got a pass on this as well. You may find this amazing, but white Greeks really don't spends a lot of time making up or handing down generation after generation anti-black people chants. Our primary concern was beer and girls.

And steps shows are about putting other black frats in the dozens, not white people.

What?

first, really?

You went to ALL the black frat parties where you heard so much filth, and you just had to keep going back to hear a large group black males talk about murdering...who?

I was an officer in my chapter of ZPB, president of the black student union, chair of the finance committee of the campus NAACP, charter member of the African American Historical Society, and even I didn't go to ALL the black frat parties.

And what exactly have you proved?

Where did I condemn all predominantly white frats? this is about SAE. If you want to claim the behavior of this chapter is indicative of all white frats, I will just have to take your word for it.

And as for chants being handed down? SAE was making that same chant in the eighties. I know because I heard members at UNC doing it when I was there.

 

[Toni]

Still waiting for an answer from the pro-expelling group here, should Christian colleges be allowed to expel students for saying vile things like homosexuality is not an abomination or admitting to being gay yet showing no repentance for it? That kind of speech is offensive to some people.

(Some)Christian colleges do expel students who are homosexual, who engage in sex outside of marriage and otherwise violate the tenents of the affiliated school. Which would sometimes include speaking up for gay rights.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

what makes you ask the question? When has there ever been some group labeled Angry Black People who spend way too much time whining about why they can't say hateful things about white people? Be careful how you answer. You mean a Step Show? You may find this amazing, but black Greeks really don't spends alot of time making up or handing down generation after generation anti-white people chants. And steps shows are about putting other black frats in the dozens, not white people. .

This is really interesting. Love watching this style of dance, but never knew the origins and always called it "STOMP" - which apparently came from this:  The first nationally syndicated stepping contest, S.T.O.M.P., aired in 1992 was created by Frank Mercardo Valdes, produced by the World African Network and Vic Bulluck and choreographed by Vernon Jackson and Jimmy Hamilton of Alpha phi Alpha fraternity.

What does "putting other black frats in the dozens" mean?

putting someone in the dozen is basically playing a game of insults. there are actual formal competitions this.

Yo Mama jokes come out of the dozens

At my first step show, DST did this chant about AKA

We're laughing at you cuz you went the wrong way
We're laughing at you cuz you're AKA
We're laughing at you cuz you dig that aka jive
All because ya couldn't get a two point five

We're laughing at you cuz you wear that pink and green
Those damn colors just make us scream!



And stuff like that.

 

[laughing dog]

Given the bolded line in the chant, you don't think the University had the right and responsibility to expel the students?

I am saying it is my understanding that state institutions have less latitude in these matters than private institutions. I believe if the expelled student(s) fight this in court, they may very well prevail.