Here's the video that shows why Mizzou's president had to go

[Read the post]


Wasn’t there another video where he made a real bone-headed victim-blaming comment about racism on campus.


Actually, I think that was [name-most-any-school-that-is-surprised-by-this-stuff].


Happy about the white allies who joined the protestors. Wish it hadn’t taken so long. The imagery of the white people blocking off the African American protestors, as well as the ones waving the speakers away as if they’re full of it is sickening.


Fat, middle-aged white men trying to silence anyone non-white/non-male/non-hetero*. Sounds about right, doesn’t it. Shameful.

*delete as appropriate


Physically blocking a public road and impeding another person’s right to move freely is not “peaceful protest”.


You seem to be “An Adult,” posting on The Internet!
Can I interest you in readings on Civil Disobedience?


Shouting with a megaphone also stretches the meaning. Nice to see professor Click in the midst again. If I did that to my boss, I would be fired.


someone wants to disobey laws by standing in the street, i’m free to disobey laws by nudging them out of the way.


Did they know the president was going to be there? Was that the purpose? Why were there so many people watching (I saw them lining the blocks in every direction). Was this part of a longer event?

Would anyone be expected to exit their car and engage in a discussion, or would that be unique to his responsibility as president? If he had exited and discussed, would that have stopped their shouting, or would that be seen as an attempt to silence them?

If I would not be expected to exit, does that mean if a group of people block my path and shout at me with megaphones I am required to wait patiently until they let me pass?


Kinda seems like everybody in the video is being kind of an asshole. Why should I care about any of them in this context?


Thank you for the link. Apparently you think it proves something. Would you like to formulate that idea in your own words? If you could address how physically impeding other people from moving around freely is “peaceful”, that would be awesome.


It seems like the power structure there didn’t really think he had to go until they realized the football team really wasn’t going to play games and they were going to lose lots of money.


I’m an old fashioned liberal who likes freedom and justice and kind of felt that Occupy Wall Street was not nearly organized enough. This issue, however leaves me with a lot more questions than answers. I am of the impression that the demonstrators were not just blocking the street but they were blocking a parade route that the President taking part in. I’m trying to figure out why Mark did not feel it was enlightening to mention this, as it seems to me to change the equation pretty significantly. People were there to see a parade, and it speaks to motive other than bigotry leading to their behaviors.

It is clear that this group was specifically targeting the University President to set up for removal. For the life of me, for all the smoke on this topic, I fail to be enlightened as to the REAL reason this president was specifically targeted for removal, cause THIS wasn’t it Mark. Apparently some sort of lack of action on some actual hate crimes, but nobody’s giving specifics, and I can’t even find much about the hate crimes. Now that would be a boingboing article I’d like to see, as this article just seems to be a blunt-object. I really want to know what is going on in depth before I jump on a social justice bandwagon, especially lately when a lot of what presents itself as progressive seems to me to be anything but.


Physically blocking a public road is a well recognized form of nonviolent peaceful protest. A form of nonviolent protest that was used extensively during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It is not wholly passive, however, it is nonviolent.

Violent protest involves Molotov cocktails, broken windows, vandalism, bodily injury, fire, etc.

The fact that you don’t like the protesters or disagree with them in some way does not Magickally remake the meaning of a term that’s been in use for a century. Their activities are not “violent” simply because they inconvenience you or offend your sensibilities.


Ohh, not exactly. Most laws against “standing in the street” are obviously inapplicable to the civil action(s) captured in this video. They’ve been used against such protests in the past, however it’s broadly recognized that such use was an illegitimate abrogation of some of our most potent political rights (the inalienable ones. Google it boy.)

Beyond that, “nudging” is an act of physical assault (low degree, ~3rd or so, depending on the jurisdiction). It is a very large step further into illegality than shouting, arm linking and standing in a thoroughfare. There are many trial lawyers in every state in this nation who would happily concur… on behalf of the nudgee.


You are confusing “peaceful” and “nonviolent”. I never said it was violent, so I’m not sure why you addressed that to me.

As for not liking the protesters, I generally don’t like people who infringe on other people’s rights.


Oh this thread, tho…


Comparing the two makes for interesting reading. I’m not sure that either answers the question of why the Univ Prez was targeted for removal though.

1 Like

Peaceful is not a perfectly accurate term to describe these protest actions, however, it’s regularly used loosely as an antonym for ‘violent’. You write idiomatic American English, so I’m very confident that you already know this, and know that you are making a bogus distinction.

You’ve made no negative comments about the dickish heckler (at c. 5.30’ in the video clip, the “you kin go 'round me” man with the open beer) and physical assaulter (the ‘nudger’ in the GIF above, pushing physically against the armlinked student protesters, seen at c. 6.50’ in the video). In light of the fact that you have negative words only for the student protesters… I’m afraid I do not believe you are motivated by a ‘general dislike’ of those who infringe on the rights of others.

That sweet assertion reads like self-congratulatory rot.