Student expelled by law school after posting ‘It’s OK to be white’ flyers: report

[Jolly_Penguin]

I wouldn't say supremacist until more information is available. But I would definitely say he's a bigot.

Maybe. But if so, so what? Doesn't seem to me to be reasonable grounds to suspend him, unless he posted something bigoted on school or in connection to it.. Did he?

I don't know and neither do you.

Correct. Seems we are in agreement.

 

[zorq]

Because according to Feminists, evil straight white men have held all the power since 1776 in a country that is (shockingly) majority white. Therefore, all straight white men deserve to be punished.

... cite? ... Nah, nevermind. We both know you just pull imaginary scenarios from the twisted recesses of your Right-wing-propaganda poisioned mind.

Black people can say, "White people can't dance!" and get laughs. White people say, "Black people can't swim!" and we get called bigoted racists.

I thought stereotypes were evil?

Lol! Irony alert!

 

[ronburgundy]

Half-Life it looks like the student wasn't expelled because of the flyers, but because they broke the terms of their suspension which are unidentified in the article.

So we don't know why they were expelled.

Don't be so naive. We all know why they were suspended.

Correct, we do know why. He was suspended for promoting white supremacy.

Suppose they put up flyers that said, "It's OK to be Muslim." Nothing would've happened and you know it.

Probably, b/c that wouldn't imply racial supremacy. First, it might surprise you to learn that being Muslim is a religious affiliation and not a race. Second, unless such a sign was a follow up to posting something that equated non-Muslims to a venereal disease, then it wouldn't be remotely similar to the context of this current case where this racist implied that having sex with blacks makes a women forever unclean. Third, not only does the context of his prior statement about blacks matter, but historical and socio-political context matters too. Since Muslims in the US are small minority with almost no power and often targeted by the majority, them saying "It's okay to be Muslim" is not a passive aggressive attack on non-Muslims. However, when members of powerful majority groups who have been the perpetrators of bigoted oppression demonstrate "pride" in their group, that has no plausible motive other than to denigrate those not in their majority group. For example, given the clear facts of history "Gay pride" merely says, "We will no longer give in to your centuries of violent attempts to shame us out of existence." Whereas, when straight people declare "straight pride" it has not plausible motive other than to say "We're proud not to be gay, b/c gays are evil, which is why we are mocking their attempts to stand up for themselves against our bigotry."

 

[Jarhyn]

It's OK to be X when nobody is pushing a broad cultural message saying X is terrorist/violent/criminal/undesirable/lazy is itself a message of X is superior. People who generally fight white supremecy and racism don't say white people are bad, just that SOME white people are bad IF they push white supremecy and ethnonationalism.

So saying "it's OK to be white" is an message of ethnonationalism because the only "white people" who ANYONE (other than maybe the Black Isrealites) are saying aren't OK are the white supremecist ethnonationalists.

The message exists in a context and the context colors the message. Anyone who is trying to argue by divorcing the message from it's context is arguing in bad faith.

 

[J842P]

It's OK to be X when nobody is pushing a broad cultural message saying X is terrorist/violent/criminal/undesirable/lazy is itself a message of X is superior. People who generally fight white supremecy and racism don't say white people are bad, just that SOME white people are bad IF they push white supremecy and ethnonationalism.

So saying "it's OK to be white" is an message of ethnonationalism because the only "white people" who ANYONE (other than maybe the Black Isrealites) are saying aren't OK are the white supremecist ethnonationalists.

The message exists in a context and the context colors the message. Anyone who is trying to argue by divorcing the message from it's context is arguing in bad faith.

No, there is a pretty clear anti-white animus on the social justice left. Extremely clear. Obviously, you'll deny it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't know and neither do you.

Correct. Seems we are in agreement.

Sorry. I couldn't tell from your loaded question.

 

[Gun Nut]

How much you guys want to bet if the student posted "it's OK to be black!" signs, they wouldn't have done a thing?

why do you spend time getting upset about things that have not happened?
I kniw in MY fantasy life, i live in a world i enjoy.

Keith, you made my day. Best line ever. I am stealing it, shooting it up with steroids, and weaponizing it.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's OK to be X when nobody is pushing a broad cultural message saying X is terrorist/violent/criminal/undesirable/lazy is itself a message of X is superior. People who generally fight white supremecy and racism don't say white people are bad, just that SOME white people are bad IF they push white supremecy and ethnonationalism.

So saying "it's OK to be white" is an message of ethnonationalism because the only "white people" who ANYONE (other than maybe the Black Isrealites) are saying aren't OK are the white supremecist ethnonationalists.

The message exists in a context and the context colors the message. Anyone who is trying to argue by divorcing the message from it's context is arguing in bad faith.

No, there is a pretty clear anti-white animus on the social justice left. Extremely clear. Obviously, you'll deny it.

Is this onenof those "you're being defensive" things where it's said in bad faith because arguing against it self-fulfills the original claim? I think it is.

All I can say is that this is the kind of argument that I expect from a racist piece of shit snowflake who doesn't want to be called out on it. Cry more.

 

[Half-Life]

Correct, we do know why. He was suspended for promoting white supremacy.

Suppose they put up flyers that said, "It's OK to be Muslim." Nothing would've happened and you know it.

Probably, b/c that wouldn't imply racial supremacy. First, it might surprise you to learn that being Muslim is a religious affiliation and not a race. Second, unless such a sign was a follow up to posting something that equated non-Muslims to a venereal disease, then it wouldn't be remotely similar to the context of this current case where this racist implied that having sex with blacks makes a women forever unclean. Third, not only does the context of his prior statement about blacks matter, but historical and socio-political context matters too. Since Muslims in the US are small minority with almost no power and often targeted by the majority, them saying "It's okay to be Muslim" is not a passive aggressive attack on non-Muslims. However, when members of powerful majority groups who have been the perpetrators of bigoted oppression demonstrate "pride" in their group, that has no plausible motive other than to denigrate those not in their majority group. For example, given the clear facts of history "Gay pride" merely says, "We will no longer give in to your centuries of violent attempts to shame us out of existence." Whereas, when straight people declare "straight pride" it has not plausible motive other than to say "We're proud not to be gay, b/c gays are evil, which is why we are mocking their attempts to stand up for themselves against our bigotry."

So what you are saying is that when whites become a minority in the U.S. by 2050, then we can start saying it's OK to be white? Also keep in mind whites are a minority race worldwide.

 

[J842P]

Is this onenof those "you're being defensive" things where it's said in bad faith because arguing against it self-fulfills the original claim? I think it is.

I don't even know what you are referring to, so I'm going to go with No, it is a honest representation of my impression that there is a deep anti-White animus on the social justice left. Social-Justice left is not a great term, but for a lack of a better term I'll use it. It's the sort of people who un-ironically talk about being "woke".

I think some of the best work on characterizing the political groups in the US come from this study:

https://psmag.com/news/the-seven-political-tribes-of-america

Their terminology is the "progressive activists", if you prefer that term.

All I can say is that this is the kind of argument that I expect from a racist piece of shit snowflake who doesn't want to be called out on it. Cry more.

Of course you would say that, without even a hint of irony!

Hate to break it to you, but it's impossible for me to be racist. I'm not white, and if you haven't heard, it's impossible to be racist if you aren't white (in America, at least).

And snowflake? What are you, twelve years old? Have I accidentally logged on to twitter?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is this onenof those "you're being defensive" things where it's said in bad faith because arguing against it self-fulfills the original claim? I think it is.

I don't even know what you are referring to, so I'm going to go with No, it is a honest representation of my impression that there is a deep anti-White animus on the social justice left. Social-Justice left is not a great term, but for a lack of a better term I'll use it. It's the sort of people who un-ironically talk about being "woke".

I think some of the best work on characterizing the political groups in the US come from this study:

https://psmag.com/news/the-seven-political-tribes-of-america

Their terminology is the "progressive activists", if you prefer that term.

All I can say is that this is the kind of argument that I expect from a racist piece of shit snowflake who doesn't want to be called out on it. Cry more.

Of course you would say that, without even a hint of irony!

Hate to break it to you, but it's impossible for me to be racist. I'm not white, and if you haven't heard, it's impossible to be racist if you aren't white (in America, at least).

And snowflake? What are you, twelve years old? Have I accidentally logged on to twitter?

You clearly take offense at the idea that you are being called a racist. Thus you are, in fact, a fragile little snowflake. One need not be on Twitter to be a crybully.

All your false concern-trolling aside over what you believe progressives believe aside (given your delusions, I don't think it matters anyway), nobody cares who you YHINK progressives might believe is racist; I'm a progressive, and regardless of what race you ascribe to, I think you are racist. So you're straight up wrong.

Cry more, racist.

 

[ronburgundy]

Correct, we do know why. He was suspended for promoting white supremacy.

Suppose they put up flyers that said, "It's OK to be Muslim." Nothing would've happened and you know it.

Probably, b/c that wouldn't imply racial supremacy. First, it might surprise you to learn that being Muslim is a religious affiliation and not a race. Second, unless such a sign was a follow up to posting something that equated non-Muslims to a venereal disease, then it wouldn't be remotely similar to the context of this current case where this racist implied that having sex with blacks makes a women forever unclean. Third, not only does the context of his prior statement about blacks matter, but historical and socio-political context matters too. Since Muslims in the US are small minority with almost no power and often targeted by the majority, them saying "It's okay to be Muslim" is not a passive aggressive attack on non-Muslims. However, when members of powerful majority groups who have been the perpetrators of bigoted oppression demonstrate "pride" in their group, that has no plausible motive other than to denigrate those not in their majority group. For example, given the clear facts of history "Gay pride" merely says, "We will no longer give in to your centuries of violent attempts to shame us out of existence." Whereas, when straight people declare "straight pride" it has not plausible motive other than to say "We're proud not to be gay, b/c gays are evil, which is why we are mocking their attempts to stand up for themselves against our bigotry."

So what you are saying is that when whites become a minority in the U.S. by 2050, then we can start saying it's OK to be white? Also keep in mind whites are a minority race worldwide.

No, as my post made clear, context matters, especially the context of being an attacked minority within a particular society. If whites ever become a powerless minority in the US and become the victims of centuries of violent abuse and inequality for being white, then you can start declaring pride in being white w/o everyone knowing that you are a white supremacist POS.

 

[Jarhyn]

So what you are saying is that when whites become a minority in the U.S. by 2050, then we can start saying it's OK to be white? Also keep in mind whites are a minority race worldwide.

No, as my post made clear, context matters, especially the context of being an attacked minority within a particular society. If whites ever become a powerless minority in the US and become the victims of centuries of violent abuse and inequality for being white, then you can start declaring pride in being white w/o everyone knowing that you are a white supremacist POS.

Half-Life confuses people attacking him (a white person) with attacking all white people. He literally can't tell the difference between "white person" and "white supremecist" because he has no empathy and is a white supremecist.

He can't understand a reality where anyone thinks any differently from himself; he sees everyone else as having the same motivations and mindset as him, given a particular situation.

 

[Half-Life]

So what you are saying is that when whites become a minority in the U.S. by 2050, then we can start saying it's OK to be white? Also keep in mind whites are a minority race worldwide.

No, as my post made clear, context matters, especially the context of being an attacked minority within a particular society. If whites ever become a powerless minority in the US and become the victims of centuries of violent abuse and inequality for being white, then you can start declaring pride in being white w/o everyone knowing that you are a white supremacist POS.

Idiot confuses people attacking him (a white person) with attacking all white people. He literally can't tell the difference between "white person" and "white supremecist" because he has no empathy and is a white supremecist.

He can't understand a reality where anyone thinks any differently from himself; he sees everyone else as having the same motivations and mindset as him, given a particular situation.

So what you're saying is that if I say, "I'm proud to be white," this is automatic racism? I can't be proud of my skin color even in a non-racist context?

Blacks can say, "I'm proud to be black" without being considered a racist. If blacks can say it, whites can say it.

If you confuse people who say, "I'm proud to be white" with "white supremacism," then aren't YOU the racist?

Imagine someone said, "I'm proud of the street that I live on" and someone said, "What are you some kind of streetist? What's wrong with other streets? Are you saying your street is the only street someone can be proud to live on?" Wouldn't you see how this response might indicate the person is a bit wonky in the brain?

 

[Gun Nut]

The student was expelled after being suspended for another incident, and then violating the terms of his suspension by trespassing. The sign was the evidence of the trespass, which is what the violation was, not the signage in and about itself.

 

[bilby]

Correct, we do know why. He was suspended for promoting white supremacy.

Suppose they put up flyers that said, "It's OK to be Muslim." Nothing would've happened and you know it.

Probably, b/c that wouldn't imply racial supremacy. First, it might surprise you to learn that being Muslim is a religious affiliation and not a race. Second, unless such a sign was a follow up to posting something that equated non-Muslims to a venereal disease, then it wouldn't be remotely similar to the context of this current case where this racist implied that having sex with blacks makes a women forever unclean. Third, not only does the context of his prior statement about blacks matter, but historical and socio-political context matters too. Since Muslims in the US are small minority with almost no power and often targeted by the majority, them saying "It's okay to be Muslim" is not a passive aggressive attack on non-Muslims. However, when members of powerful majority groups who have been the perpetrators of bigoted oppression demonstrate "pride" in their group, that has no plausible motive other than to denigrate those not in their majority group. For example, given the clear facts of history "Gay pride" merely says, "We will no longer give in to your centuries of violent attempts to shame us out of existence." Whereas, when straight people declare "straight pride" it has not plausible motive other than to say "We're proud not to be gay, b/c gays are evil, which is why we are mocking their attempts to stand up for themselves against our bigotry."

So what you are saying is

What he is saying is quoted above. Any interpretation beyond that isn't what he is saying; It's what YOU are saying.

that when whites become a minority in the U.S. by 2050,

An implausible and unsupported claim that you present as though the quoted poster agrees it to be a fact - but it's not a fact, and there's no evidence that he agrees with you; it's your fantasy.

then we can start saying it's OK to be white?

Nothing stops anyone from saying that now. The idea that we cannot say that is another of your fantasies.

Also keep in mind whites are a minority race worldwide.

Why would that be a problem? Are minorities mistreated around you?

 

[Gun Nut]

Idiot confuses people attacking him (a white person) with attacking all white people. He literally can't tell the difference between "white person" and "white supremecist" because he has no empathy and is a white supremecist.

He can't understand a reality where anyone thinks any differently from himself; he sees everyone else as having the same motivations and mindset as him, given a particular situation.

So what you're saying is that if I say, "I'm proud to be white," this is automatic racism? I can't be proud of my skin color even in a non-racist context?

Blacks can say, "I'm proud to be black" without being considered a racist. If blacks can say it, whites can say it.

If you confuse people who say, "I'm proud to be white" with "white supremacism," then aren't YOU the racist?

Imagine someone said, "I'm proud of the street that I live on" and someone said, "What are you some kind of streetist? What's wrong with other streets? Are you saying your street is the only street someone can be proud to live on?" Wouldn't you see how this response might indicate the person is a bit wonky in the brain?

"I'm proud to be black" is a response to being vilified for being black at an institutionalized, societal level.
What, then, is "I'm proud to be white" a response to?

 

[Half-Life]

Idiot confuses people attacking him (a white person) with attacking all white people. He literally can't tell the difference between "white person" and "white supremecist" because he has no empathy and is a white supremecist.

He can't understand a reality where anyone thinks any differently from himself; he sees everyone else as having the same motivations and mindset as him, given a particular situation.

So what you're saying is that if I say, "I'm proud to be white," this is automatic racism? I can't be proud of my skin color even in a non-racist context?

Blacks can say, "I'm proud to be black" without being considered a racist. If blacks can say it, whites can say it.

If you confuse people who say, "I'm proud to be white" with "white supremacism," then aren't YOU the racist?

Imagine someone said, "I'm proud of the street that I live on" and someone said, "What are you some kind of streetist? What's wrong with other streets? Are you saying your street is the only street someone can be proud to live on?" Wouldn't you see how this response might indicate the person is a bit wonky in the brain?

"I'm proud to be black" is a response to being vilified for being black at an institutionalized, societal level.
What, then, is "I'm proud to be white" a response to?

Nope. Sorry. The Nation of Islam are black supremacists who believe the white race are devils. They say, "I'm proud to be black."

Try again.

And when leftists and feminists yell at white men for being white and calling them evil, why can't we say, "I'm proud to be white?"

 

[Jarhyn]

"I'm proud to be black" is a response to being vilified for being black at an institutionalized, societal level.
What, then, is "I'm proud to be white" a response to?

Nope. Sorry. The Nation of Islam are black supremacists who believe the white race are devils. They say, "I'm proud to be black."

Try again.

And when leftists and feminists yell at white men for being white and calling them evil, why can't we say, "I'm proud to be white?"

And the Black Isrealites are also black supremecist whose statement of such is, in context, racist.

This doesn't eliminate the fact that when you, a white supremecist, say it, that it is a reinforcement of your racism.

It's only not-racist when said by someone who is A: not clearly a racist (thus providing a context in which not-that is implied as inferior), AND B: not in a racially attacked group (which implies that the existence of not-that is inferior, rather than "honest" pride).

Their racism doesn't excuse you using the statement in a racist way.

In fact, the context you point out, the one that makes their statement of pride racist, all the more reinforces the fact that when you, an ethnonationalist say it, it is a racist statement.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's OK to be X when nobody is pushing a broad cultural message saying X is terrorist/violent/criminal/undesirable/lazy is itself a message of X is superior. People who generally fight white supremecy and racism don't say white people are bad, just that SOME white people are bad IF they push white supremecy and ethnonationalism.

So saying "it's OK to be white" is an message of ethnonationalism because the only "white people" who ANYONE (other than maybe the Black Isrealites) are saying aren't OK are the white supremecist ethnonationalists.

The message exists in a context and the context colors the message. Anyone who is trying to argue by divorcing the message from it's context is arguing in bad faith.

I think we all know this is bullshit.

Saying "it's ok to be white" is merely somebody pushing back against the impression they get that people are shaming people for being white and collectively blaming them for racism etc. Half Life is way over the top, but he's not wrong that white males are considered less taboo in polite society to deride simply for being white and male. Sexism against women and racism against non-whites is at least recognized as bad.

"it's ok to be white" is deliberately crafted to be taken and unobjectionable, to make a point when people react to it with hostility and cries of racism. And it's not a bad point.

"It's ok to be white" isn't a message of hate crafted against minorities. It is a message of defiance crafted at over the top racist SJWs.