• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Missouri collegiate Football team starts strike over racism at school

Status
Not open for further replies.

Infinite

Member
Feb 6, 2010
17,582
0
0
I get where you're coming from, but he was a photographer for the school newspaper taking pictures AFTER their victory. I understand how they felt, but I'd be lying if I said that the fact that nobody was cognizant of how their actions would come across, and how it would seem hypocritical to fight for your own rights while shutting down another right that undergirds and strengthens rights (like freedom of the press to document public spaces), didn't feed into my preconceptions of many modern social justice activists as overly emotional and out of touch, whatever the justness of their overarching cause and the reality of the pain that drove them to it.
fundamentally disagree. Denying one dude access isn't them making a grand stand against freedom of press. To call them hypocrites for what basically amounts to not wanting your picture taken while they are fighting against actual oppression on their campus is a bit strange. Not that I think this is the right or wrong way to go about it I just don't think it's that big of a deal. If this is what makes people turn their back on these kids then they never had their support anyway.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
fundamentally disagree. Denying one dude access isn't them making a grand stand against freedom of press. not that I think this is the right or wrong way to go about it I just think it's that big of a deal.

Its not a big deal in what way? Clearly it is garnering a lot of negative press for their cause so it is working counter to any goal they have.

On a legal ground they are in the wrong. That photographer has every right to be there. And based on Missouri law the way this went down may in fact constitute and garner assault charges.

Even from their own camp they have reversed their feelings on the matter.

And it may not be their intention to take a stand against freedom of the press, well, Im not actually sure what their intention was in this instance, but oppressing the freedom of the press and stifling anothers rights is ultimately what they were doing in the course of whatever their intention and rationalization was.

If this is what makes people turn their back on these kids then they never had their support anyway.

Im not personally sure if I am with them or not in terms of their detailed demands. I'm certainly sympathetic to the grievances and to an even larger degree agree with the underlying complaints about systemic inequality and can sympathize with the mounting frustration. However I don't think it is right to go down this path of framing and implying those that find this sort of behavior troubling enough to pull back on support or empathy were never genuine to begin with.

That sort of behavior really isnt acceptable no matter who the perpetrator is.
 

GorillaJu

Member
Apr 23, 2010
26,258
0
0
I think you're being silly and dramatic when you say shit like this at best and callous and selfish at worst. This isn't about your feelings dude. Calling people trying create a space where they feel comfortable with talking the very serious going ons here dramatic and silly when you have no skin in this game completely lacks perspective and empathy. white students were excluded from the movement entirely so why frame as such? also what is wrong with having safe spaces?

Yeah it's like I said in that post you quoted, being unwanted in some places is just part of life and I accept that.
 

Infinite

Member
Feb 6, 2010
17,582
0
0
Its not a big deal in what way? Clearly it is garnering a lot of negative press for their cause so it is working counter to any goal they have.

On a legal ground they are in the wrong. That photographer has every right to be there. And based on Missouri law this may in fact constitute assault.

Even from their own camp they have reversed their feelings on the matter.

And it may not be their intention to take a stand against freedom of the press, well, Im not actually sure what their intention was in this instance, but oppressing the freedom of the press and stifling anothers rights is ultimately what they were doing in the course of whatever their reasoning was.

It's not a big deal in the sense that this isn't going to make me stop caring about the racism these kids are protesting against. If It's gaining negative attention it's probably because America already sees black people as the tribe who cried wolf and use anything to delegitimize our voices when we speak out or lash out against issues we face. Bottom line protests are ugly, there's no nice way to do it (but idk if what they did was the right thing to do.)

You're right, legally the journalist had a right to be there. I'm not debating that no one is here as far as I can tell. But they can also say hey we don't want you to take our pictures and we don't want to answer any of your questions.

Lastly to say that they them denying this guy access to talk them is oppressing free speech is bullshit. This is literally the equivalent of shoving a camera out your face when you don't want your picture taken by someone you don't know. You can miss me with that.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
It's not a big deal in the sense that this isn't going to make me stop caring about the racism these kids are protesting against. If It's gaining negative attention it's probably because America already sees black people as the tribe who cried wolf and use anything to delegitimize our voices when we speak out or lash out against issues we face. Bottom line protests are ugly, there's no nice way to do it (but idk if what they did was the right thing to do.)

You're right, legally the journalist had a right to be there. I'm not debating that no one is here as far as I can tell. But they can also say hey we don't want you to take our pictures and we don't want to answer any of your questions.

Lastly to say that they them denying this guy access to talk them is oppressing free speech is bullshit. This is literally the equivalent of shoving a camera out your face when you don't want your picture taken by someone you don't know. You can miss me with that.

There are reasons to be concerned with what the protestors did beyond just your narrow assumption that anyone who does is seeing these protestors in a completely negative light. Lets get real here. What they did constituted a violation of another's legal rights. End of story.

Even for those 100% in with their cause and demands those actions were problematic and legally wrong. And it seems even they agree with that. Which is why they changed their tune. And its also why the person calling for "muscle" resigned her post at the school.

Protests can and often do get ugly but that is no reason to throw your hands up and basically play the "ends justify the means" card and brush away legitimate problems the movement is creating for itself. Especially if you value the end goals of the movement.

Protests strength and resolve depend on the devotion of the cause, the people involved and those they need on the outside to be swayed and/or pressured to change. Actions like this work counter to that and begin to pervert the righteousness within the movement IMO.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
Aug 2, 2008
3,619
0
0
Well there is empathy. I'm black myself. And if I had people that were white that were truly there to support me in things like this, I wouldn't want exclude them from the process in any capacity. I'd want other races there so they hear the issues on a deeper level and further understand why what is being done is being done and why the pain is there.

And the purpose of the protests in general is to help spread that word and educate the privileged. But that's not the purpose of the specific breakaway session that asked white allies to leave.

This specific event was to allow the black students to discuss things without having to educate, or be on their best behavior to avoid backlash, or be on display. The purpose was to share in a more intimate, honest fashion than many would be comfortable with in mixed company. Maybe you're okay with having an audience for that sort of discussion, but a lot of people aren't.

I remember my freshman orientation had something similar for men's and women's issues, where the guys discussed such topics as masturbation etiquette when dealing with shared living spaces. And yeah, some guys would've been okay with asking that question in mixed company, but a lot of guys wouldn't. Separating the sexes out in that manner helped people open up and ask questions.

Giving people an hour and a room to discuss things in private isn't segregation.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
And the purpose of the protests in general is to help spread that word and educate the privileged. But that's not the purpose of the specific breakaway session that asked white allies to leave.

This specific event was to allow the black students to discuss things without having to educate, or be on their best behavior to avoid backlash, or be on display. The purpose was to share in a more intimate, honest fashion than many would be comfortable with in mixed company. Maybe you're okay with having an audience for that sort of discussion, but a lot of people aren't.

I remember my freshman orientation had something similar for men's and women's issues, where the guys discussed such topics as masturbation etiquette when dealing with shared living spaces. And yeah, some guys would've been okay with asking that question in mixed company, but a lot of guys wouldn't. Separating the sexes out in that manner helped people open up and ask questions.

Giving people an hour and a room to discuss things in private isn't segregation.

Thats actually the best way I have heard this framed yet. Interesting post. Though I can still see some counter points this is a fair rationale.
 

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
6,121
9,297
885
24
Earth
Giving people an hour and a room to discuss things in private isn't segregation.
How? It's literally denying entrance based on race. Literally being judged unworthy to be in the room because of the colour of your skin. If white people denied black students to a meeting, then we would have no problem calling it segregation.
 

UltimaPooh

Member
Aug 2, 2006
9,987
0
1,195
Springfield, MO
How? It's literally denying entrance based on race. Literally being judged unworthy to be in the room because of the colour of your skin. If white people denied black students to a meeting, then we would have no problem calling it segregation.

When does that happen tho? Where white people need to discuss white issues in private?
 
Jun 19, 2013
23,820
1
0
How? It's literally denying entrance based on race. Literally being judged unworthy to be in the room because of the colour of your skin. If white people denied black students to a meeting, then we would have no problem calling it segregation.

Would you see the example of the men and women separating to talk about masturbation etiquette as gender-based segregation?
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
How? It's literally denying entrance based on race. Literally being judged unworthy to be in the room because of the colour of your skin. If white people denied black students to a meeting, then we would have no problem calling it segregation.

I mean on a technical level it is segregation. Sure.

But what is the reasoning or purpose of that separation?

Why are those white people denying black people? Or to be more specific why are those white people asking the black people to leave for a while?

I mean I guess i can conjure up a couple specific situations where some white people may want to only talk amongst themselves that is for good reasons but if the rationale of the protestors was as that poster said then I am not sure it is that bad.
 

Jacksinthe

Banned
May 26, 2014
6,237
0
0
Chicago, IL
It's not a big deal in the sense that this isn't going to make me stop caring about the racism these kids are protesting against. If It's gaining negative attention it's probably because America already sees black people as the tribe who cried wolf and use anything to delegitimize our voices when we speak out or lash out against issues we face. Bottom line protests are ugly, there's no nice way to do it (but idk if what they did was the right thing to do.)

You're right, legally the journalist had a right to be there. I'm not debating that no one is here as far as I can tell. But they can also say hey we don't want you to take our pictures and we don't want to answer any of your questions.

Lastly to say that they them denying this guy access to talk them is oppressing free speech is bullshit. This is literally the equivalent of shoving a camera out your face when you don't want your picture taken by someone you don't know. You can miss me with that.
Eh. You can tell someone "no" when they ask to take pictures or ask to interview you. You cannot stop them, physically, from moving about and asking other people. The student reporter had every right to ask EVERYONE individually if he could do his job, instead, he was body walled and pushed back. As the protesters stepped forward into him they kept saying "stop touching me" and "get out of my personal space" when they were physically moving on him. Then, despite being a protest against racism, went on to say "typical white media" to an Asian guy - because irony?

You can call the media out on their bullshit and rightfully so in MANY fucking cases - but you can't physically stop, touch or bully them out. The most you can do is deny them when they ask you. They have the right to be there like anyone else. Then the icing on the cake is that he was a fucking student trying to cover what was going on.

Its not about them not letting him take pictures, its the way they did it. That's the problem. Tell him to fuck off all day and night, no problems there, but don't act like a 5 year old pushing up on someone and saying "stop touching me" when you are the one moving in on him. They were physically preventing him from moving - that's a no no.

Did you not watch the video? Because its plain as day whey they were doing. To suggest what they were doing is right is dangerous ground. You can't physically form a wall and stop someone from moving about a public space.

I'm very relieved the photographer kept his cool in that situation, despite being bullied by a bunch of children.

Don't want your picture taken or interview? Say no and move on. Don't form a human wall and physically push them out.
 

xKilltheMx

Member
Jul 8, 2008
7,344
0
0
Safe spaces are a thing and not a bad thing. Surprised nobody has brought up MLK in the safe space "segregation" discussion yet.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
Not surprised discussion has moved to "bad protesters going against the media" and "safe spaces are segregation". We always find away to not actually discuss the actual issue. Reading the last few pages you would think it was the black studenta doing the oppressing.
 
Nov 14, 2013
8,174
0
0
Part of empathy is the ability to take the perspective of someone different from yourself. An empathic person wouldn't decry a safe place for an all-black meeting as segregation because an empathic person would understand the concerns of that person being AA-centric and unrelated to white culture, regardless of how much of an alliance the white population wishes to form.

As someone who is white and strives to empathize with as many other cultures as possible, I train myself to understand the perspective in moments like these. I don't condemn them; I respect them for wanting to do something that, in their opinion of their own well-being, makes them feel safe. Who am I to criticize them when I can ever only have a cursory knowledge of what they're dealing with.
 

trembli0s

Member
Jul 12, 2013
1,095
0
0
Texas
Merits of the protest aside, Mizzou is going to have a serious academic black eye from this. If this carries on I imagine the AAU will start having discussions.
 

User 73706

Banned
Aug 3, 2010
20,489
1
0
26
Mary Esther, FL
Not surprised discussion has moved to "bad protesters going against the media" and "safe spaces are segregation". We always find away to not actually discuss the actual issue. Reading the last few pages you would think it was the black studenta doing the oppressing.

It always is, if the "isn't giving black people some space just as racist as death threats?" peanut gallery are anything to go by.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,307
411
1,410
Not surprised discussion has moved to "bad protesters going against the media" and "safe spaces are segregation". We always find away to not actually discuss the actual issue. Reading the last few pages you would think it was the black studenta doing the oppressing.

The actual issue in this case is vague and we have limited evidence to go on, while we can see with our own eyes the behavior of the protesters.

In the specific incident we've seen, the black students were doing the oppressing.

Safe spaces are a thing and not a bad thing. Surprised nobody has brought up MLK in the safe space "segregation" discussion yet.

'Safe spaces' as in this example are very much a bad thing, and fundamentally incompatible with a free society. You can't lay claim to a public space and toss out the media or anyone who disagrees with you. You can't advocate for civil rights by denying them to others.
 

Big Baybee

Member
Sep 15, 2009
12,296
0
0
The actual issue in this case is vague and we have limited evidence to go on, while we can see with our own eyes the behavior of the protesters.

In the specific incident we've seen, the black students were doing the oppressing.



'Safe spaces' as in this example are very much a bad thing, and fundamentally incompatible with a free society. You can't lay claim to a public space and toss out the media or anyone who disagrees with you. You can't advocate for civil rights by denying them to others.

lol. Fuck this shit makes me so angry.
 

Crimson_Gold

Member
Feb 7, 2013
11,107
0
0
The actual issue in this case is vague and we have limited evidence to go on, while we can see with our own eyes the behavior of the protesters.

In the specific incident we've seen, the black students were doing the oppressing.



'Safe spaces' as in this example are very much a bad thing, and fundamentally incompatible with a free society. You can't lay claim to a public space and toss out the media or anyone who disagrees with you. You can't advocate for civil rights by denying them to others.

So you know how sometimes you want to be left alone? Or you want to deal with your family? Typically you tell others to let you have your space. You appreciate their concern, but you'd rather be able to deal with things in-house. Yea, well apply that logic to this. Sometimes you need to vent. Sometimes you'll say things that wouldn't necessarily be understood by others and you'd rather not have to try to explain yourself to anyone. You know this happens all of the time.

But carry on with this masquerade of reverse oppression and denial of civil rights. You don't have to be a part of every damn thing at all times.
 

xKilltheMx

Member
Jul 8, 2008
7,344
0
0
The actual issue in this case is vague and we have limited evidence to go on, while we can see with our own eyes the behavior of the protesters.

In the specific incident we've seen, the black students were doing the oppressing.



'Safe spaces' as in this example are very much a bad thing, and fundamentally incompatible with a free society. You can't lay claim to a public space and toss out the media or anyone who disagrees with you. You can't advocate for civil rights by denying them to others.

fuck out of here with that. That's like safe spaces for rape victims or war vets or cancer survivors or anybody are bad. These people asked for a space to talk about these issues that affect them without having to worry about mixed company. It's a common practice, and thats because it makes sense.

If you dont know it you for can empathize but its not the same as knowing. There's a difference.

edit: same thing crimson said but they said it better
 

JBourne

maybe tomorrow it rains
Jan 9, 2013
8,931
1
0

First person to spark the race war gets an extra hour in the ball pit.
 

Infinite

Member
Feb 6, 2010
17,582
0
0
Eh. You can tell someone "no" when they ask to take pictures or ask to interview you. You cannot stop them, physically, from moving about and asking other people. The student reporter had every right to ask EVERYONE individually if he could do his job, instead, he was body walled and pushed back. As the protesters stepped forward into him they kept saying "stop touching me" and "get out of my personal space" when they were physically moving on him. Then, despite being a protest against racism, went on to say "typical white media" to an Asian guy - because irony?

You can call the media out on their bullshit and rightfully so in MANY fucking cases - but you can't physically stop, touch or bully them out. The most you can do is deny them when they ask you. They have the right to be there like anyone else. Then the icing on the cake is that he was a fucking student trying to cover what was going on.

Its not about them not letting him take pictures, its the way they did it. That's the problem. Tell him to fuck off all day and night, no problems there, but don't act like a 5 year old pushing up on someone and saying "stop touching me" when you are the one moving in on him. They were physically preventing him from moving - that's a no no.

Did you not watch the video? Because its plain as day whey they were doing. To suggest what they were doing is right is dangerous ground. You can't physically form a wall and stop someone from moving about a public space.

I'm very relieved the photographer kept his cool in that situation, despite being bullied by a bunch of children.

Don't want your picture taken or interview? Say no and move on. Don't form a human wall and physically push them out.
I never said the way they handled not wanting to be interviewed was the right thing to do. I'll rephrase my points succinctly as possible since you managed to attack a strawman. First, them shoving this dude out of their presence doesn't turn them into oppressors of free speech, it's ludicrous and fucking blind to think so. This reverse oppression narrative we got going on in this discussion needs to end. Secondly, if that was enough to make people turn their backs on these kids then those people were never in their corner. There's no such thing as s polite protests. Get that shit out of your skulls.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,307
411
1,410
So you know how sometimes you want to be left alone? Or you want to deal with your family? Typically you tell others to let you have your space. You appreciate their concern, but you'd rather be able to deal with things in-house. Yea, well apply that logic to this. Sometimes you need to vent. Sometimes you'll say things that wouldn't necessarily be understood by others and you'd rather not have to try to explain yourself to anyone. You know this happens all of the time.

But carry on with this masquerade of reverse oppression and denial of civil rights. You don't have to be a part of every damn thing at all times.

If you want to be left alone, don't go to a public protest maybe?

It seems kind of strange to go out and say 'we want our voice to be heard (but not by you guys)'.

Also oppressed and oppressor are not intrinsic attributes of individuals, oppression is an action, so reverse oppression is a nonsensical concept.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,307
411
1,410
fuck out of here with that. That's like safe spaces for rape victims or war vets or cancer survivors or anybody are bad. These people asked for a space to talk about these issues that affect them without having to worry about mixed company. It's a common practice, and thats because it makes sense.

If you dont know it you for can empathize but its not the same as knowing. There's a difference.

edit: same thing crimson said but they said it better

That's not what public spaces are for though, you can't just demand people be excluded from a public place.

You are free to talk about whatever you want in private, and if reporters show up, they'd be in the wrong there, but when you hold a public protest, the expectation is that it is public.
 

Crimson_Gold

Member
Feb 7, 2013
11,107
0
0
If you want to be left alone, don't go to a public protest maybe?

It seems kind of strange to go out and say 'we want our voice to be heard (but not by you guys)'.

Also oppressed and oppressor are not intrinsic attributes of individuals, oppression is an action, so reverse oppression is a nonsensical concept.

You do know that you don't have to be on protest 24 hours a day right? People do need time to deal with different aspects of what is going on. It amazes me that the same courtesies we extend people on a daily basis cannot be extended here. You're not oppressing people by saying you want space. You can't dictate how someone should feel and react in all facets of what is going on. The best part of all of the chastising is that many have never dealt with what these students are experiencing.

Why every single thing minorities, in this case blacks, do needs to abide by some special unwritten code is beyond me. It really isn't, but I'd rather not go down that path at the moment.

It's baffling that this needs to be spelled out for people.

Amazing how people overlook how they are attempting to carve out a place for themselves. This group has been given no place, voice or respect. They are attempting to obtain all 3. Somehow this is wrong though. They are doing a terrible thing because wanting to have what others have had is a bad thing.
 

Scrooged

Totally wronger about Nintendo's business decisions.
Dec 23, 2012
2,716
0
0
That's not what public spaces are for though, you can't just demand people be excluded from a public place.

You are free to talk about whatever you want in private, and if reporters show up, they'd be in the wrong there, but when you hold a public protest, the expectation is that it is public.

It's baffling that this needs to be spelled out for people.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,307
411
1,410
You do know that you don't have to be on protest 24 hours a day right? People do need time to deal with different aspects of what is going on. It amazes me that the same courtesies we extend people on a daily basis cannot be extended here. You're not oppressing people by saying you want space. You can't dictate how someone should feel and react in all facets of what is going on. The best part of all of the chastising is that many have never dealt with what these students are experiencing.

Why every single thing minorities, in this case blacks, do needs to abide by some special unwritten code is beyond me. It really isn't, but I'd rather not go down that path at the moment.



Amazing how people overlook how they are attempting to carve out a place for themselves. This group has been given no place, voice or respect. They are attempting to obtain all 3. Somehow this is wrong though. They are doing a terrible thing because wanting to have what others have had is a bad thing.

What were reporters following people around 24/7, going into dorm rooms and recording them?

I was under the impression that guy was in a public space taking photos and asking for interviews, which he had every right to be doing. If the guy comes up and wants to talk, tell him you need space, tell him to fuck off and die, whatever I don't care, but you can't bully someone out of a public space because you do not want to talk to them.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
The actual issue in this case is vague and we have limited evidence to go on, while we can see with our own eyes the behavior of the protesters.

In the specific incident we've seen, the black students were doing the oppressing.
Mistreatment of blacks and other minorities on a university campus is not a vague issue, come the fuck on son. The discussion has the ability to talk about about 100 relevant issues to that topic but the focus is on not letting a reporter report which everyone already acknowledges is wrong though they understand to an extent why it happened.

The black students wanting to be able to discuss black issues amoung other black people is not fucking oppressive. Its not strange to want to vent frustration in an environment where you wont be judged nearly as harshly or offend someone with something you say despite not meaning ill will. Did you ever think that part of wanting a safe space is for the protection of other students as well? So they do not get the impression that they are hated because of some of the obviously racially charged stuff thatnis going to be discussed?

The fact that you have turned a protest about racism toward blacks on a university campus into blacks being racially oppressive is plainly telling. If it isn't your intention you should come off it because your post are sending a clear message of where you stand.

'Safe spaces' as in this example are very much a bad thing, and fundamentally incompatible with a free society. You can't lay claim to a public space and toss out the media or anyone who disagrees with you. You can't advocate for civil rights by denying them to others.

This is rich. The protestors acted poorly to a reporter. Yes. Now they are oppressorrs of civil rights and their cause has no meaning. Okay I am mow sure of where you stand.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,307
411
1,410
Mistreatment of blacks and other minorities on a university campus is not a vague issue, come the fuck on son. The discussion has the ability to talk about about 100 relevant issues to that topic but the focus is on not letting a reporter report which everyone already acknowledges is wrong though they understand to an extent why it happened.

The black students wanting to be able to discuss black issues amoung other black people is not fucking oppressive. Its not strange to want to vent frustration in an environment where you wont be judged nearly as harshly or offend someone with something you say despite not meaning ill will. Did you ever think that part of wanting a safe space is for the protection of other students as well? So they do not get the impression that they are hated because of some of the obviously racially charged stuff thatnis going to be discussed?

The fact that you have turned a protest about racism toward blacks on a university campus into blacks being racially oppressive is plainly telling. If it isn't your intention you should come off it because your post are sending a clear message of where you stand.



This is rich. The protestors acted poorly to a reporter. Yes. Now they are oppressorrs of civil rights and their cause has no meaning. Okay I am mow sure of where you stand.

When did I ever say that?
 

DragonSworne

Banned
Aug 23, 2011
12,539
1
0
The black students wanting to be able to discuss black issues amoung other black people is not fucking oppressive. Its not strange to want to vent frustration in an environment where you wont be judged nearly as harshly or offend someone with something you say despite not meaning ill will. Did you ever think that part of wanting a safe space is for the protection of other students as well? So they do not get the impression that they are hated because of some of the obviously racially charged stuff thatnis going to be discussed?

I'm jumping in at the tail end of the discussion here so I may be missing a lot of the details, but who is denying anyone a safe place? Are public places by definition safe places? I wouldn't think so given the US Bill of Rights but I would like to hear your opinion.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
When did I ever say that?

You don't need to explicitly say something for your stance to imply it.Their safr space is bad because i is directly against civil rights. Because they did not allow one reporter to report and asked essentially to have some public alone time which all the other students seemed to not have trouble respecting they are bad. Reading everything you have said explain to me why this isn't a reasonable conslusion? I am being setious, you are not giving the stance of someone for the cause. If you actually are you should be made aware of how you're coming across.
 

Geist-

Member
Oct 14, 2014
6,756
1
0
Just got passed the story about the student journalist being blocked from covering what was happening on campus, and the corresponding video. Extremely disappointing and upsetting to see, especially as someone who works in photo-journalism. Thought the Atlantic put it best:



The demonization of the word "media" is tiring. Yes the media is twisted, but this is a journalism student exercising a First Amendment right, and this is how he's treated. Ugh.

Sorry if this is LTTP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o - Video for those interested. Is there a thread about this?

A friend of mine filmed that video, it was seriously disgusting what they did. I don't think it was shown in the video but one of the Journalism professors were there (she taught Communication or something), and called for muscle to remove this Student Journalist from the area. Lost all sympathy from me.

She was removed from the Journalism department after that, but I think she still teaches classes. She really should have lost her job.
 

Jacksinthe

Banned
May 26, 2014
6,237
0
0
Chicago, IL
I never said the way they handled not wanting to be interviewed was the right thing to do. I'll rephrase my points succinctly as possible since you managed to attack a strawman. First, them shoving this dude out of their presence doesn't turn them into oppressors of free speech, it's ludicrous and fucking blind to think so. This reverse oppression narrative we got going on in this discussion needs to end. Secondly, if that was enough to make people turn their backs on these kids then those people were never in their corner. There's no such thing as s polite protests. Get that shit out of your skulls.
The first sentence of this post is the only thing that has to do with what I said.

I never said anything about opressing free speech.
Never mentioned any "reverse oppression".
Never mentioned anyone turning their backs on anyone.
Never mentioned anything about "polite" protests.

I simply said the way they handled that one reporter was like children because you said it's not a big deal. I'd appreciate if you direct your other arguments against people who stated them.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Jul 17, 2013
4,888
0
465
Gonna just drop these two links about safe space - since it seems there is a fundamental disagreement going on about whether a private group (which a protest is) can occupy a public space and then declare it a private space using the concept of it now being a "safe space".

https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword/

Won't quote the entire piece - worth reading to get entire context.

That's why I didn't flip out last week when someone announced they were building "Pillowfort," a friendlier version of the social media site Tumblr. The announcement was met with swift jeers from the usual suspects. Folks derided the idea of a social media site that, even more than the famously left-dominated Tumblr, lets you limit with whom you interact and control who sees your content. But why? Pillowfort would be self-selecting. Nobody goes into the fort who doesn't want to be there. It's not like somebody is wandering onto your social media account and building a fort around you and telling you how you can interact with others. Pillowfort represents something that conservatives used to support in other circumstances: a private club, run by its own rules, with admission limited as its members see fit. If I'm not a member of the club, how its members regulate discourse within it is of little interest to me. Similarly, though organized Twitter blocklists are troublesome to some people, they don't bother me. They, too, are an application of freedom of association. Do I think some lists are organized around silly principles? Sure. But people are like that. Freedom of association is the right to organize ourselves in silly ways.

In short, I support people creating "safe spaces" as a shield by exercising their freedom of association to organize themselves into mutually supporting communities, run according to their own norms. But not everyone imagines "safe spaces" like that. Some use the concept of "safe spaces" as a sword, wielded to annex public spaces and demand that people within those spaces conform to their private norms. That's not freedom of association. That's rank thuggery, a sort of ideological manifest destiny.1 It's the difference between saying "I shouldn't be forced to go to a talk by this controversial figure" and "this controversial figure should not be allowed to speak at my school."

Then part 2

https://popehat.com/2015/11/10/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword-part-ii/

Not gonna quote the entire piece - worth reading the entire piece to get the full context.

The safe-space-as-sword came during the victory celebration. The proposition was wantonly naked: the university's public spaces that activists had chosen to occupy were a no-dissent zone, where activists were entitled to be free from differing interpretations of events:

The "parameters" in question were the public university's quad, one of the most quintessentially public spaces in American law and tradition. This sentiment — that students could take over a public space, use it to express their views on a public issue, and shut other views out of it in the name of emotional safety — was vigorously enforced by a crowd threatening a photographer and a communications professor shouting for "muscle" to help her expel media.

All of this — engendered by accusations of racism against African-Americans — comes within living memory of people asserting their right to make public venues culturally "safe spaces" free of African-Americans. Of course, those safety-minded citizens were somewhat less sophisticated in their jargon. They had signs too.

Some people look on this sentiment and despair. I don't. It's a good thing for America to see how mainstream the spirit of censorship is. Some people say the censorship discredits the substantive values the students are fighting for. I don't. The protest about racism rises or falls on its own merits; the anti-dissent sentiment is so banal and common in academia now, and students aren't taught any different. It would be like saying that t-shirts and bad hair discredit the ideas the protesters are fighting for. Some people suggest that these students (and professors) deserve to face the censorship they encourage. I don't. Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
 

Infinite

Member
Feb 6, 2010
17,582
0
0
Oh boy. I'm out.
The first sentence of this post is the only thing that has to do with what I said.

I never said anything about opressing free speech.
Never mentioned any "reverse oppression".
Never mentioned anyone turning their backs on anyone.
Never mentioned anything about "polite" protests.

I simply said the way they handled that one reporter was like children because you said it's not a big deal. I'd appreciate if you direct your other arguments against people who stated them.
That's fair.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
I'm jumping in at the tail end of the discussion here so I may be missing a lot of the details, but who is denying anyone a safe place? Are public places by definition safe places? I wouldn't think so given the US Bill of Rights but I would like to hear your opinion.

People here are quoting the law like there are people banging on the doors trying to gain access to the temporary safe space the protestors have created and the protestors are employing heavily violent tactics. Its so laughable. In the last few days they've protested againat racism and collectively had their lives threatened on social media . They now simply want to protest publically (so people know they havent withered away) and have a safe space so people affected by what has happened (so they are easy to identify) can voice some fruatration and distress. Yall are acting like this is human rights being trampled all over.

Technically can they claim a public space as private and deny people? No. In actuality is the campus in uproar over this? No, because they fucking get it. I think people understand given the shit show of the last few days that what the protestors are requesting is not a big deal.

Fine they are oppressors of civil rights. Fine, they are big fucking sensitive babies. Fine the US constitution deems they should stop their bullshit because laws and freedoms. But if you remove your "these protestors aint shit" glasses and just observe this as students on a campus its not a big deal. They are literally being demonized over an incident with a reporter. Like come the fuck on people, how can you look at this entire thing only tske away that then wonder why people do not trust your intentions.
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
It's fake outrage so people can go "See, Blacks are the REAL racists!". It's such a nonsensical distraction.

Yeah I don't agree with how the protesters handled the media, but the way that single aspect blew up and eclipsed the entire point of the movement is problematic as people are just using it as an excuse to disregard the whole movement.


Yup and this...


is a prime example of what you posted. The media intentionally misinterpreting events. When this is the kind of coverage you get, then I can at least see why they wouldn't want the media around.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Yeah I don't agree with how the protesters handled the media, but the way that single aspect blew up and eclipsed the entire point of the movement is problematic as people are just using it as an excuse to disregard the whole movement.
A big reason why it's dominating discussion is that the resignations happened almost immediately. The football strike worked, there's no tension/discussion there.
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
A big reason why it's dominating discussion is that the resignations happened almost immediately. The football strike worked, there's no tension/discussion there.

Yeah but the resignation was only a single aspect of the initial protests. They were largely about the racial tensions on campus, and that isn't something that can be fixed by a simple resignation. Plus a lot of people (not on gaf specifically) are using the whole media thing to disregard the original intent of the protesters entirely.
 

DragonSworne

Banned
Aug 23, 2011
12,539
1
0
Yeah but the resignation was only a single aspect of the initial protests. They were largely about the racial tensions on campus, and that isn't something that can be fixed by a simple resignation. Plus a lot of people (not on gaf specifically) are using the whole media thing to disregard the original intent of the protesters entirely.

Is the media thing not a big deal regardless of people's motives?
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
A big reason why it's dominating discussion is that the resignations happened almost immediately. The football strike worked, there's no tension/discussion there.

The protests wouldnt still be going on if all they ever wanted was a resignation. This was squarely about rampant racism on their campus and a part of that was the people they wanted to address it continually didn't. Its hardly a reason for discussion about the main issue to devolve into the bullshit on the last few pages.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
Aug 16, 2004
17,419
0
1,390
The protests wouldnt still be going on if all they ever wanted was a resignation. This was squarely about rampant racism on their campus and a part of that was the people they wanted to address it continually didn't. Its hardly a reason for discussion about the main issue to devolve into the bullshit on the last few pages.

The resignation was number two on their list of demands, and number one was a ridiculous public shaming of him, so it's a pretty big one.

We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1-­9-­5-0 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege, recognize that systems of oppression exist, and provide a verbal commitment to fulfilling Concerned Student 1-9-5-­0 demands. We want Tim Wolfe to admit to his gross negligence, allowing his driver to hit one of the demonstrators, consenting to the physical violence of bystanders, and lastly refusing to intervene when Columbia Police Department used excessive force with demonstrators.

II. We demand the immediate removal of Tim Wolfe as UM system president. After his removal a new amendment to UM system policies must be established to have all future UM system president and Chancellor positions be selected by a collective of students, staff, and faculty of diverse backgrounds.

III. We demand that the University of Missouri meets the Legion of Black Collegians' demands that were presented in 1969 for the betterment of the black community.

IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.

V. We demand that by the academic year 2017-2018, the University of Missouri increases the percentage of black faculty and staff campus-wide to 10%.

VI. We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10 year plan by May 1, 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.

VII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding and resources for the University of Missouri Counseling Center for the purpose of hiring additional mental health professionals -- particularly those of color, boosting mental health outreach and programming across campus, increasing campus-­wide awareness and visibility of the counseling center, and reducing lengthy wait times for prospective clients.

VIII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding, resources, and personnel for the social justices centers on campus for the purpose of hiring additional professionals, particularly those of color, boosting outreach and programming across campus, and increasing campus-­wide awareness and visibility.

Most of the others aren't things that can happen overnight (and aren't expected to)
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
The resignation was number two on their list of demands, and number one was a ridiculous public shaming of him, so it's a pretty big one.



Most of the others aren't things that can happen overnight (and aren't expected to)

Their list of demands is not synonymous with the reason they are protesting. That's a fundamental flaw of understanding. If I protest that I want the racism in sororities and fraternaties to end and 1 of my demands is alumni members have no say in who is selected that doesnt mean that main point is what the protest is about.
 

DragonSworne

Banned
Aug 23, 2011
12,539
1
0
The resignation was number two on their list of demands, and number one was a ridiculous public shaming of him, so it's a pretty big one.



Most of the others aren't things that can happen overnight (and aren't expected to)


Thanks, I was going to ask what actions the protestors were demanding since I haven't seen one. I don't know why anyone would be against their wants. Is the administration in denial that there isn't a problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.