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

[Kimmo]

@anon61221983

That’s not what @milliefink is doing here - she isn’t trying to trip you up and make you look foolish. She’s repeatedly expressed serious interest in the construction of whiteness and what that means to people.

So a follow up - why does being a white male make you proud?

@JeanBaptiste

Everyone should be proud of who they are, right? That brings up the question though: is “white, male” who I am, or what I am? Either way, If anyone can tell me why I should be the opposite, personally ashamed of what or who I am, as a white male, I’m willing to listen. But I doubt I’ll agree.

As a “white guy”, I don’t really identify at all with that classification; I think the most relevant pigeonhole I could be in would be science fan. That way, I could set aside the 15,000 years of stupid arsehole dominion crippling our potentiality, bringing suffering and death like rain, and just go yay, science, yay footprints on the moon, yay computers, yay etc.

But regardless of what classification of person I perceive myself to be, ‘white’ and ‘guy’ are often going to be the two most obvious things about to me strangers, so of course I represent that group to others. So, insofar as my capacity to be spokesman for all the white guys extends, I’d like to go ahead and offer my deepest and most heartfelt apologies for the small matter of that 15,000 years of stupid arsehole dominion crippling our potentiality, bringing suffering and death like rain.

Sorry, our bad. Really hope we can figure out how to stop being such utter fucken dicks, stat.

[heywire84]

This is a bit old at this point, but I wanted to respond.

Should any racial incidents be tolerated on a college campus? Are the racist actions excusable because the perpetrators were drunk? Perhaps a campus cop made a note and forgot all about it, but should that be what is expected at a college campus? Dismissing casual racism as just something that drunk college kids do is the reason casual racism persists. The racists learn that leaving cotton balls around won’t get them into trouble, maybe even earn them some pats on the back. All the while, the black people who are targeted just have to deal with it day after day.

According to reports, the black community at Mizzou had been attempting to communicate with the higher ups at the college. They were met with apparent apathy on the part of administrators. When a University president willfully ignores the objections of a portion of the student body and community, how can they be defended? It would appear that the University president “had to go” because he was unable or unwilling to do his job. Even announcing plans to crack down on racist behavior and then not following through may have been sufficient, but not even that step was taken.

[Hutz]

hmclachlan, you’re very good at reading only part of what people write.

I started by saying they were “non-violent” and differentiated that from “peaceful”.

And, no I’m not saying they were keeping anyone from class, I meant reverse the power struggle. In the 50s we had Klansmen (avowed or not) trying to physically block Black students from their lawful rights. You can try to couch this in terms that fit your specific needs, but quite simply, what they did was illegal, as evidenced by the police shooing them away at the end. Note that they comply with the police, so it isn’t an act of civil disobedience - it’s just self-righteousness.

[anon15383236]

@Hutz

Note that they comply with the police, so it isn’t an act of civil disobedience - it’s just self-righteousness.

[coherent_light]

@rigs

I’m not American

You may be unaware, then, that in the US, driving is a privilege, not a right.

[anon61221983]

@Kimmo

So, insofar as my capacity to be spokesman for all the white guys extends, I’d like to go ahead and offer my deepest and most heartfelt apologies for the small matter of that 15,000 years of stupid arsehole dominion crippling our potentiality, bringing suffering and death like rain.

To be fair, I think you only have to apologize for the age of imperialism/colonialism kicked off by Columbian voyage of “discovery”… Unless you’re talking about the “guy” thing… that’s been around for a while. Did Engels say that this was the first kind of oppression.

Here, we’ll just let this rare parrot shag you and call it even, shall we?

(ETA - I just love that gif)

Also, just help make it better now. Listen, don’t dismiss others (whoever they are or identify as) when they explain their experiences to you, and try to help when you can. Vote for politicians of color or who are women. Support policies that work for the betterment of all of us. Don’t be a dick, as Wil Wheaton might say. Speak up when you see oppression. But I know you have lots of this covered already.

[renke]

o/t. I only saw the gif and knew you wrote the comment. is this good or bad?

[OtherMichael]

You could also use water-cannons and dogs!

That way you don’t get your hands dirty.

[hmclachlan]

[quote=“Hutz, post:64, topic:69172”]
I started by saying they were “non-violent” and differentiated that from “peaceful”.

This is an artful distinction; semantic nonsense designed to disguise your repeated effort to draw an equivalence between them and Klansmen, c. 1950. There is no equivalence between the Klan’s very violent efforts to keep blacks from whites-only education and the modest breaches of peace these students may be guilty of.

quite simply, what they did was illegal, as evidenced by the police shooing them away at the end. Note that they comply with the police, so it isn’t an act of civil disobedience - it’s just self-righteousness.

Neither the fact that the police asked them to disperse, nor their compliance, nor any assertion made here Magickally makes their activities illegal or actionable. No matter how strongly you insist otherwise. Beyond that, civil disobedience commonly involves breaking laws; that is part of the definition of the term. Their civil action was certainly not entirely “illegal”. It may fall under the definition of civil disobedience irrespective of legality due to the way they challenged social norms and risked censure by the university.

I do not at this point know if they have been cited or charged with breaking any law, or even infringing on the university honor code. You may link to local newspaper articles indicating otherwise, however, keep in mind they can only have been charged at this point, not determined guilty in either case.

In light of these facts, I suggest you stop libeling them by calling them lawbreakers and by equating them with the powerful murderers who held sway in Missouri in the not too distant past.

[Hutz]

How can you talk about the meaning of words and then not want to consider what words mean?

Non-violent protest and peaceful protest are two different things. It is not semantic nonsense. Words have meaning. This protest was non-violent. It was not peaceful, rather, it was aggressive in nature and easily could have devolved into provoking violence, although the protesters do seem determined not to start any violence.

Civil Disobedience doesn’t “commonly involve breaking laws” it always does, otherwise it is not disobedience. Please also note that there is a common assumption that engaging in civil disobedience may be legal repercussions. They are frequently minor (a fine or a few days in jail), but people engaging in civil disobedience should be prepared for such an outcome.

They were not charged with a crime. Blocking traffic for a moment in and of itself is not a crime. They did so long enough that it is, but the moment the police showed up, they complied with the peace officer’s instructions. Had they were charged, it would probably be a violation (akin to jaywalking) and nothing more.

Please do let me make clear, though, that I in no way mean to equate their behavior with the Klan. That was not my intent at all. I was using a logical tool to reverse the situation to draw a parallel. I do not believe that these protesters meant physical harm upon anyone, and I believe they ultimately are trying to protect their own rights rather than deny someone else’s. However, when your protest begins by denying other people their rights, you really shouldn’t be surprised if those people get upset.

Allegedly, they were trying to start a dialogue, right? Did they call the President’s office and ask for an appointment first, or did they start by block his path?

Finally, on the semantics issue, libel must be both false and specific. Since I name no one, and I state obvious facts, there is no libel. But go on, keep making it up as you go.

[anon61221983]

I guess that just means I’m getting boring and predictable. I’m sorry I’ve let you all down.

[anon61221983]

[Roberto]

At about 9 minutes in, the video clearly shows Melissa Click and her husband joining arms with the protestors. Just an observation.

[anon15383236]

@Hutz

Non-violent protest and peaceful protest are two different things. It is not semantic nonsense. Words have meaning. This protest was non-violent. It was not peaceful, rather, it was aggressive in nature and easily could have devolved into provoking violence, although the protesters do seem determined not to start any violence.

Bollocks. It WAS peaceful protest, and if it had “provoked” any violence, that would not have been the fault of the protesters. Please stop trying to find ways to not-so-subtly blame them.

@Hutz

Please also note that there is a common assumption that engaging in civil disobedience may be legal repercussions. They are frequently minor (a fine or a few days in jail), but people engaging in civil disobedience should be prepared for such an outcome.

Say what now? I don’t think these protesters had any illusions about the possibility of this action resulting in jail time. If you’re implying that they hadn’t thought of that, your condescension reaches a new level of arrogance here.

@Hutz

Allegedly, they were trying to start a dialogue, right? Did they call the President’s office and ask for an appointment first, or did they start by block his path?

Funny (not) how you apparently assume it was the latter.

I have a pretty good spidey sense by this point of which side you’re actually on.

[ChuckV]

Oh, this one again…

[ChuckV]

Personally, I don’t recall having ever been proud to be white or male because in my case both are simply accidents of birth. I don’t consider either to have been an accomplishment on my part.

Of course, there’s always being able to write my name in the snow, but dammit that took practice. And mittens…

[s2redux]

@rigs

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

Neither do the protesters like the people who infringe on their rights.

(But really…any higher-ed school whose administration is taken by surprise – and/or reacts this clumsily – when shit like this happens is not getting the leadership it deserves, and a change will pbly do everyone some good.)

[IpoNokaoi]

Haha. Quite an accomplishment. Right? Most anybody couldn’t do it if they tried.

[hereticbranding]

@Kimmo

Sorry, our bad. Really hope we can figure out how to stop being such utter fucken dicks, stat.

Oh…fuck yes.

[Hutz]

@anon15383236

Bollocks. It WAS peaceful protest, and if it had “provoked” any violence, that would not have been the fault of the protesters. Please stop trying to find ways to not-so-subtly blame them.

I’ve already stated that their actions were a “breach of the peace”. Forming a wall in front of someone and preventing their progress is not “peaceful”. It is non-violent. I do not believe they wished for a violent outcome, but you must think them idiots if you believe they didn’t consider it a possibility that their actions would lead someone else to violence.

@anon15383236

Say what now? I don’t think these protesters had any illusions about the possibility of this action resulting in jail time. If you’re implying that they hadn’t thought of that, your condescension reaches a new level of arrogance here.

Of course they didn’t want to go to jail, that’s why they move out of the road the moment the police come and tell them to. Hence, not civil disobedience.

@anon15383236

Funny (not) how you apparently assume it was the latter.
I have a pretty good spidey sense by this point of which side you’re actually on.

I based my rhetorical question on research. You based your assumption on thin air. I dare you to prove me wrong.

And you spidey sense sucks, completely. Please don’t jump off any rooftops, you will fall.

This conversation started as a discussion of what words mean in relation to forms of protest. “Non-violence”, “peaceful”, “civil disobedience” all have distinct meanings that folks are tossing around without thinking and saying things that either they don’t mean to, or are in accurate.