High school seniors expelled, will not graduate and lose college admissions over racist TikTok video

[John Dule]

This is a good post and the politics are sound theoretically. I don't think they work very well practically, in tje kind of country most of us want to live in.

For the record, I oppose the government persecuting these kids for this video. I do howevet support the school and the app TikTok deciding that they refuse to be continue their association with these kids.

But the school is public and therefore a part of the government.

The government is not removing them or banning them from the public school system. They are being expelled fom that one particular public school and are free to enroll in another. In fact, I could be wrong here, but I believe the government is required to allow them to enroll in another, no?

So you'd be happy if your local DMV turned you away if they didn't like the opinions you expess online? After all, you can always go to the DMV 90 minutes away. What about the post office-- can they refuse to serve you based on your private views? Fire departments? Police stations?

Emergency services are obviously different.

If I dropped an N Bomb at the DMV, I probably deserve it, yeah. At least a temporay "don't come back here".

But you didn't "drop an N bomb at the DMV." You posted it online in the privacy of your own home, and then you went to the DMV the next day to find that the government was refusing to provide you with services because you expressed the wrong opinion.

And really, emergency services are different? How, exactly? Do you realize that this is the precedent you're trying to set?

[T'Chenka]

This is a good post and the politics are sound theoretically. I don't think they work very well practically, in tje kind of country most of us want to live in.

For the record, I oppose the government persecuting these kids for this video. I do howevet support the school and the app TikTok deciding that they refuse to be continue their association with these kids.

But the school is public and therefore a part of the government.

The government is not removing them or banning them from the public school system. They are being expelled fom that one particular public school and are free to enroll in another. In fact, I could be wrong here, but I believe the government is required to allow them to enroll in another, no?

So you'd be happy if your local DMV turned you away if they didn't like the opinions you expess online? After all, you can always go to the DMV 90 minutes away. What about the post office-- can they refuse to serve you based on your private views? Fire departments? Police stations?

Emergency services are obviously different.

If I dropped an N Bomb at the DMV, I probably deserve it, yeah. At least a temporay "don't come back here".

But you didn't "drop an N bomb at the DMV." You posted it online in the privacy of your own home, and then you went to the DMV the next day to find that the government was refusing to provide you with services because you expressed the wrong opinion.

Okay.

- Students are expected to represent their schools

- Schools are a massive social atmosphere more prone to violence / crime

- A school is expected to somewhat mold their students and be a community embassador

None of these are true for a DMV.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a good post and the politics are sound theoretically. I don't think they work very well practically, in tje kind of country most of us want to live in.

For the record, I oppose the government persecuting these kids for this video. I do howevet support the school and the app TikTok deciding that they refuse to be continue their association with these kids.

But the school is public and therefore a part of the government.

The government is not removing them or banning them from the public school system. They are being expelled fom that one particular public school and are free to enroll in another. In fact, I could be wrong here, but I believe the government is required to allow them to enroll in another, no?

So you'd be happy if your local DMV turned you away if they didn't like the opinions you expess online? After all, you can always go to the DMV 90 minutes away. What about the post office-- can they refuse to serve you based on your private views? Fire departments? Police stations?

Emergency services are obviously different.

If I dropped an N Bomb at the DMV, I probably deserve it, yeah. At least a temporay "don't come back here".

But you didn't "drop an N bomb at the DMV." You posted it online in the privacy of your own home, and then you went to the DMV the next day to find that the government was refusing to provide you with services because you expressed the wrong opinion.

Okay.

- Students are expected to represent their schools

- Schools are a massive social atmosphere more prone to violence / crime

- A school is expected to somewhat mold their students and be a community embassador

None of these are true for a DMV.

Did the students identify their school in the video? (I didn't watch it) I'd be inclined to agree if they referenced their school as that is arguably assuming representation of the school.

[T'Chenka]

This is a good post and the politics are sound theoretically. I don't think they work very well practically, in tje kind of country most of us want to live in.

For the record, I oppose the government persecuting these kids for this video. I do howevet support the school and the app TikTok deciding that they refuse to be continue their association with these kids.

But the school is public and therefore a part of the government.

The government is not removing them or banning them from the public school system. They are being expelled fom that one particular public school and are free to enroll in another. In fact, I could be wrong here, but I believe the government is required to allow them to enroll in another, no?

So you'd be happy if your local DMV turned you away if they didn't like the opinions you expess online? After all, you can always go to the DMV 90 minutes away. What about the post office-- can they refuse to serve you based on your private views? Fire departments? Police stations?

Emergency services are obviously different.

If I dropped an N Bomb at the DMV, I probably deserve it, yeah. At least a temporay "don't come back here".

But you didn't "drop an N bomb at the DMV." You posted it online in the privacy of your own home, and then you went to the DMV the next day to find that the government was refusing to provide you with services because you expressed the wrong opinion.

Okay.

- Students are expected to represent their schools

- Schools are a massive social atmosphere more prone to violence / crime

- A school is expected to somewhat mold their students and be a community embassador

None of these are true for a DMV.

Did the students identify their school in the video? (I didn't watch it) I'd be inclined to agree if they referenced their school as that is arguably assuming representation of the school.

I think somebody doxxed them, not in a creepy internet research way, but by sharing on the internet "hey I recognize these people".

[GP270watch]

See, if I were an authoritarian, this is the sort of ignorant speech I'd want to ban and persecute. How fortunate for you that I, unlike you, can separate my personal opinions from what I think should be codified law.

 You make no sense. Stop and think before you post such drivel. You defend blatant hate and are offended by people who don't want to tolerate racism. You're part of the problem because you're one of the people who think calling out racism and holding racists accountable is a bigger affront than actually being racist.

[Senator Incitatus]

As a Tik Tok user, there's so much stuff on this level but directed at white people. Of course that stuff doesn't get apprehended or taken down, because white people bad.

This would be excessive punishment for someone saying bad stuff about whites and it is here. There should be some kind of discipline but being blocked from graduating and going to college because of an internet video is not proportionate to the wrong done.

It's comparable to giving a life sentence for burglary.  I certainly condemn the behavior, but the response to this is vengeance, rather than justice.

Vengeance is a common and laudable justification for criminal or social punishment. Read J.F. Stephen.

[John Dule]

Okay.

- Students are expected to represent their schools

I can see the case for this argument if we were talking about a private university or even a public one. However, this is a high school. No matter how much you try to dress it up with "school spirit," it's still just a small branch of the state government providing a service to people. The school cannot be held legally culpable for the behavior of their students off-campus, so it stands to reason that it does not have any jurisdiction over their behavior. The idea that a student at a random local public school should act as a representative of their school in their spare time is just.... lol.

Edit: Also, they were not connected to the school in any way in that video, and the only reason they have been associated with the school is because of online "do-gooders" doxing them.

- Schools are a massive social atmosphere more prone to violence / crime

I agree with this, so it makes sense to suspend these students for their own safety. However, guess what? There aren't any in-person classes right now because of the Coronavirus! So why not let them finish the semester, get their high school diplomas, and graduate them? Instead, you're forcing them to continue attending high school in person when they re-apply in the fall, at which point they'll be physically present in class and therefore in even more danger of the violence you're talking about. This is why it's so obvious that this is a purely vengeful, vindictive measure and not at all motivated by protecting these students.

- A school is expected to somewhat mold their students and be a community embassador

Hahaha! No, sorry, but public schools are not propaganda centers (well, at least they shouldn't be). It is not the school's job to instill subjective "moral values" in students through fascist brainwashing and public shaming tactics. The school is there to present the facts in an objective, unbiased light, and to teach the students critical thinking skills so they can form their own opinions. This includes covering, of course, the true history of American racism and the lack of scientific evidence for racial hierarchies. But this does not mean that you can ban, expel, or silence people who are not receptive to these lessons. You can't expel someone from school for being a racist any more than you can ban them for being a Flat Earther, a creationist, or (for that matter) a Christian.

I love how """progressives""" are so willing to argue that "education is a human right"-- unless the person receiving that education says one of the 3,900 things that make them lose their temper, in which case all bets are off.

[John Dule]

See, if I were an authoritarian, this is the sort of ignorant speech I'd want to ban and persecute. How fortunate for you that I, unlike you, can separate my personal opinions from what I think should be codified law.

 You make no sense. Stop and think before you post such drivel. You defend blatant hate and are offended by people who don't want to tolerate racism. You're part of the problem because you're one of the people who think calling out racism and holding racist accountable is a bigger affront than actually being racist.

You have hurt my feelings and you must now suffer the consequences. Mods, ban this user for his hateful speech towards me. He is expressing an opinion that I don't like and he must be punished.

[lfromnj]

See, if I were an authoritarian, this is the sort of ignorant speech I'd want to ban and persecute. How fortunate for you that I, unlike you, can separate my personal opinions from what I think should be codified law.

 You make no sense. Stop and think before you post such drivel. You defend blatant hate and are offended by people who don't want to tolerate racism. You're part of the problem because you're one of the people who think calling out racism and holding racists accountable is a bigger affront than actually being racist.

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

[GP270watch]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

 I'm sure they hurt many people with their racism. While the government did not arrest these kids, schools are required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide a school environment free of racial discrimination and this can include harassment and failure to discipline students who create a hostile learning environment. Schools get sued for this all the time, a favorite of the rightwing Candace Owens even sued her school system because she was the victim of racial taunts and threats made outside of school.

 

[lfromnj]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

 I'm sure they hurt many people with their racism. While the government did not arrest these kids, schools are required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide a school environment free of racial discrimination and this can include harassment and failure to discipline students who create a hostile learning environment. Schools get sued for this all the time, a favorite of the rightwing Candace Owens even sued her school system because she was the victim of racial taunts and threats made outside of school.

 

By hurt I mean a violation of one's rights to life(physical well being) or property or a threat to one. I don't see that.
Yes schools are required by the 1964 civil rights act to provide a non hostile environment and if the students were saying stuff like this in class there would be much less leeway for them.
And Candace Owens case literally involved death threats although I know she is mostly a con artist anyway.

[GP270watch]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

 I'm sure they hurt many people with their racism. While the government did not arrest these kids, schools are required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide a school environment free of racial discrimination and this can include harassment and failure to discipline students who create a hostile learning environment. Schools get sued for this all the time, a favorite of the rightwing Candace Owens even sued her school system because she was the victim of racial taunts and threats made outside of school.

 

By hurt I mean a violation of one's rights to life(physical well being) or property or a threat to one. I don't see that.
Yes schools are required by the 1964 civil rights act to provide a non hostile environment and if the students were saying stuff like this in class there would be much less leeway for them.
And Candace Owens case literally involved death threats although I know she is mostly a con artist anyway.

Hasan was referencing a lawsuit filed by then-18-year-old Owens in 2008 accusing the Stamford Board of Education of not doing enough to protect her from racist harassment by white classmates. According to the complaint, one student allegedly threatened to kill Owens and called her slur.

One of the teens also called her “dirty,” threatened to torch her house and tar and feather her she claimed. Owens missed six weeks of school over the incident, saying it was too traumatizing to attend class with her alleged bullies, The News-Times reported.

The NAACP,  which Owens now calls “one of the worst groups for Black people,” helped the teen secure a $37,500 settlement in the case.

[GP270watch]

This seems pretty cut and dry to me unless your priorities are something else...

David Brooks, principal of Carrollton High School, said they should be held accountable for their behavior even if the video was record after school.

“It is our priority to keep our schools safe, and there is no doubt this incident has caused significant tension at Carrollton High School”

[lfromnj]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

 I'm sure they hurt many people with their racism. While the government did not arrest these kids, schools are required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide a school environment free of racial discrimination and this can include harassment and failure to discipline students who create a hostile learning environment. Schools get sued for this all the time, a favorite of the rightwing Candace Owens even sued her school system because she was the victim of racial taunts and threats made outside of school.

 

By hurt I mean a violation of one's rights to life(physical well being) or property or a threat to one. I don't see that.
Yes schools are required by the 1964 civil rights act to provide a non hostile environment and if the students were saying stuff like this in class there would be much less leeway for them.
And Candace Owens case literally involved death threats although I know she is mostly a con artist anyway.

Hasan was referencing a lawsuit filed by then-18-year-old Owens in 2008 accusing the Stamford Board of Education of not doing enough to protect her from racist harassment by white classmates. According to the complaint, one student allegedly threatened to kill Owens and called her slur.

One of the teens also called her “dirty,” threatened to torch her house and tar and feather her she claimed. Owens missed six weeks of school over the incident, saying it was too traumatizing to attend class with her alleged bullies, The News-Times reported.

The NAACP,  which Owens now calls “one of the worst groups for Black people,” helped the teen secure a $37,500 settlement in the case.

Oh wow specific targeted death threats against an individual from a position of power(Daniel Malloy's son) compared to dumbly and racially stereotyping a broad group of people, clearly the exact same scenario.

[GP270watch]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

 I'm sure they hurt many people with their racism. While the government did not arrest these kids, schools are required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide a school environment free of racial discrimination and this can include harassment and failure to discipline students who create a hostile learning environment. Schools get sued for this all the time, a favorite of the rightwing Candace Owens even sued her school system because she was the victim of racial taunts and threats made outside of school.

 

By hurt I mean a violation of one's rights to life(physical well being) or property or a threat to one. I don't see that.
Yes schools are required by the 1964 civil rights act to provide a non hostile environment and if the students were saying stuff like this in class there would be much less leeway for them.
And Candace Owens case literally involved death threats although I know she is mostly a con artist anyway.

Hasan was referencing a lawsuit filed by then-18-year-old Owens in 2008 accusing the Stamford Board of Education of not doing enough to protect her from racist harassment by white classmates. According to the complaint, one student allegedly threatened to kill Owens and called her slur.

One of the teens also called her “dirty,” threatened to torch her house and tar and feather her she claimed. Owens missed six weeks of school over the incident, saying it was too traumatizing to attend class with her alleged bullies, The News-Times reported.

The NAACP,  which Owens now calls “one of the worst groups for Black people,” helped the teen secure a $37,500 settlement in the case.

Oh wow specific targeted death threats against an individual from a position of power(Daniel Malloy's son) compared to dumbly and racially stereotyping a broad group of people, clearly the exact same scenario.

 The racism in the video is dehumanizing and is the reason we see black life valued so lowly in our society. Racism is dangerous, it is not innocuous or innocent.

[lfromnj]

This seems pretty cut and dry to me unless your priorities are something else...

David Brooks, principal of Carrollton High School, said they should be held accountable for their behavior even if the video was record after school.

“It is our priority to keep our schools safe, and there is no doubt this incident has caused significant tension at Carrollton High School”

The fact of the matter is this quote just shows the mob won and forced the school district to do this and the claim its for safety is a bs claim because schools are all online right now. Government will always claim "Safety" when its clear its just an excuse to gain more power. Its not for the safety of the students or anyone, its for the safety of the principal's job.

[John Dule]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

[GP270watch]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

 But his argument isn't reasonable at all and he is minimizing racism as are many others in this thread. Doing so while arguing that the rights of the racist jerks are being denied, when they're simply suffering real consequences for their own actions. Actions which actually deny rights to others. Racism is dehumanizing behavior that takes away rights and opportunities from others.

 I also don't give the ifromnj the benefit of the doubt based on his posting history. He's not some free speech crusader, at all.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=361875.msg7205000#msg7205000
 
 Here is an example of some students protesting in a non-violent manner(the very definition of free speech) because they wanted more attention paid to racist incidents and racial inclusion at Oklahoma University. Notice how ifromnj wanted maximum consequences for these students and called them "emotional terrorists". So where is the consistency? I can only characterize a person by what they post. Racism doesn't seem to bother him at all, his love of "Free speech" seems rather convenient, and he is for social order and the public institutions taking disciplinary actions at his own discretion.

[lfromnj]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

But his argument isn't reasonable at all and he is minimizing racism as are many others in this thread. Doing so while arguing that the rights of the racist jerks are being denied, when they're simply suffering real consequences for their own actions. Actions which actually deny rights to others. Racism is dehumanizing behavior that takes away rights and opportunities from others.

Point to where I committed a logical fallacy or made an objectively false statement?


I would like to say I hate the term free speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences when thats literally what its supposed to be, its like the joke in the Soviet Union.

Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the US and USSR? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes
So yes freedom of speech should mean freedom of consequences from the government, I am more mixed about the mob as I said I am mostly mad at them that demanded a governmental punishment for speech. I also don't worry too much about colleges rescinding them, as it is a "holistic" review. However with the current structure of the US socio-political system, graduating high school is almost 100% necessary to succeed even if college isn't and if most people agree its a right then it should be given to anyone despite their private opinions.

[lfromnj]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

 I also don't give the ifromnj the benefit of the doubt based on his posting history. He's not some free speech crusader, at all.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=361875.msg7205000#msg7205000
 
 Here is an example of some students protesting in a non-violent manner(the very definition of free speech) because they wanted more attention paid to racist incidents and racial inclusion at Oklahoma University. Notice how ifromnj wanted maximum consequences for these students and called them "emotional terrorists". So where is the consistency? I can only characterize a person by what they post. Racism doesn't seem to bother him at all, his love of "Free speech" seems rather convenient, and he is for social order and the public institutions taking disciplinary actions at his own discretion.

Yes students protest in a non-violent manner with a hunger strike but that doesn't mean someone has to listen to one's hunger strike, Norway's mass killer threatened to go on a hunger strike because he only had a PS2 instead of a PS3. I myself didn't believe the government should act on the hunger strike itself besides not listening to their absurd demands. The only consequence I wanted for them was to lose a few pounds as calling their bluff would be the cheapest move there. I maybe did go too far with my "labelling" of them but I didn't wish for any legal punishment on them.

[John Dule]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

 But his argument isn't reasonable at all and he is minimizing racism as are many others in this thread. Doing so while arguing that the rights of the racist jerks are being denied, when they're simply suffering real consequences for their own actions. Actions which actually deny rights to others. Racism is dehumanizing behavior that takes away rights and opportunities from others.

 I also don't give the ifromnj the benefit of the doubt based on his posting history. He's not some free speech crusader, at all.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=361875.msg7205000#msg7205000
 
 Here is an example of some students protesting in a non-violent manner(the very definition of free speech) because they wanted more attention paid to racist incidents and racial inclusion at Oklahoma University. Notice how ifromnj wanted maximum consequences for these students and called them "emotional terrorists". So where is the consistency? I can only characterize a person by what they post. Racism doesn't seem to bother him at all, his love of "Free speech" seems rather convenient, and he is for social order and the public institutions taking disciplinary actions at his own discretion.

Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? You are saying that the government should actively persecute people who have opinions you don't like. Lfromnj was saying that those students should be allowed to continue with their stupid strike but that the government shouldn't engage with them. How on Earth is this an argument against his (unimpeachable) commitment to free speech?

To your first paragraph, the only people who had their "rights and opportunities taken away" were the two students in question, so you clearly don't care about that. Again, grow up. Learn to deal with the fact that not everybody sees the world the way you do.

[lfromnj]

Im more mixed about who's worse(the students or the mob) but yeah I would consider that the government punishing private speech is much worse than 2 random idiots who haven't hurt anyone. The 2nd suggests to me ignorance and stupidity, the former suggests an extremely scary power given to the state.

 Why not type the truth that they haven't hurt you because you don't care about their racism.

You need to learn that just because someone defends someone else's right to speak does not mean that they condone what they're saying. Lfromnj is not even remotely sympathetic to racism and your implication that he is is just a lazy way for you to dismiss the perfectly reasonable argument he's presenting. Try addressing what the other person is actually saying rather than trying to read malicious intent into their comments. In other words, act mature.

 But his argument isn't reasonable at all and he is minimizing racism as are many others in this thread. Doing so while arguing that the rights of the racist jerks are being denied, when they're simply suffering real consequences for their own actions. Actions which actually deny rights to others. Racism is dehumanizing behavior that takes away rights and opportunities from others.

 I also don't give the ifromnj the benefit of the doubt based on his posting history. He's not some free speech crusader, at all.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=361875.msg7205000#msg7205000
 
 Here is an example of some students protesting in a non-violent manner(the very definition of free speech) because they wanted more attention paid to racist incidents and racial inclusion at Oklahoma University. Notice how ifromnj wanted maximum consequences for these students and called them "emotional terrorists". So where is the consistency? I can only characterize a person by what they post. Racism doesn't seem to bother him at all, his love of "Free speech" seems rather convenient, and he is for social order and the public institutions taking disciplinary actions at his own discretion.

Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? You are saying that the government should actively persecute people who have opinions you don't like. Lfromnj was saying that those students should be allowed to continue with their stupid strike but that the government shouldn't engage with them. How on Earth is this an argument against his (unimpeachable) commitment to free speech?

To your first paragraph, the only people who had their "rights and opportunities taken away" were the two students in question, so you clearly don't care about that. Again, grow up. Learn to deal with the fact that not everybody sees the world the way you do.

TBF I can give GP the benefit of the doubt because I did say "or forcefeed them" That wasn't my opinion on what should have been done as that violates one's right to body autonomy, but a lot of people like perhaps I would say Fuzzy bear might be of that opinion because to them its better to violate one's body autonomy than let them starve while also not wanting to give into their demands.

[GP270watch]

Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? You are saying that the government should actively persecute people who have opinions you don't like.

 Never said any such thing. I said public institutions don't have to tolerate racist behavior because they do not. Legally schools are required to provide an environment free of racial hostility and harassment for their students. The schools could be subject to civil liability if they don't.

 

 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? You are saying that the government should actively persecute people who have opinions you don't like.

 Never said any such thing. I said public institutions don't have to tolerate racist behavior because they do not. Legally schools are required to provide an environment free of racial hostility and harassment for their students. The schools could be subject to civil liability if they don't.

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

[GP270watch]

TBF I can give GP the benefit of the doubt because I did say "or forcefeed them" That wasn't my opinion on what should have been done as that violates one's right to body autonomy, but a lot of people like perhaps I would say Fuzzy bear might be of that opinion because to them its better to violate one's body autonomy than let them starve while also not wanting to give into their demands.

 I always give every poster the benefit of the doubt and try not to assume intention or beliefs. However when I constantly see what people prioritize and what is important to them, it is telling. When you see what somebody is outraged by vs. what they constantly minimize, I do start to draw conclusions about what a person's values are. If somebody tells me this is what I think is important and this is what I will excuse and minimize, what choice do I have but to believe them?