quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Vincent is racist as well as sexist because he stereotypes all white men as someone who is privileged. This stereotype is simply used to put down anyone who happens to be white and male.

How is that not racist and sexist?

Ahhh . . . I never said all white men were privileged. What I said was those who have been privileged have been white men and you as a member of that group pay for it now. Nothing racist or sexist in that . . . just history. Make a list of the richest people, make a list of Corporate CEOs, make a list of long tenured politicians or university professors. Look at their images. They are overwhelmingly male and white in English speaking nations. Rise up from de Nile, get your face above water, deal with it. Then your choice of conclusions is that white men have been privileged, or that . . . . . women and people of color do not have the wherewithal to succeed in such numbers. Which is it?

No you didn't say "white men were privileged" you said "priveledged white boys."

So here, once again, you show that you are aware of your racists comments by "changing" what you said once you were caught. Awareness is correct it seems.

Yes, both terms are correct within the context used.

Picking nits, hey?

They are his nits...let him pick, just consider the source!!!!
nasty little things nits...

quote:

To the bold (I added) above. LMAO. Sure, boys NEVER talk about girls until they go and ask permission of the girls. Hey, you'd fit right in with Obama's fascist rules. Jees.

quote:

To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

To the bold (I added) above. LMAO. Sure, boys NEVER talk about girls until they go and ask permission of the girls. Hey, you'd fit right in with Obama's fascist rules. Jees.

You are trying to inch out from the context of the OP, much in the way you might inch your shoe under the wall of the bathroom stall in Minneapolis International Airport.

Your disregard and disrespect for the concept of consent is appalling and glaringly ignorant in the context of a BDSM Forum. Management really needs to stop you thirteen year olds building a Profile. Jees

quote:

To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn.

More boring "boys will be boys" apologies. But elementary schools do not allow little boys to strike little girls without consequences; no reason for universities to tolerate the immature application of white male privileged power.

Wooden-fucking-dummy

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Vincent, using the dictionary definitions of the terms "sexist" and "racist", please explain exactly how what these students did fit those definitions.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with the notion that sexist behavior might include expressing opinions about the sexual desirability, or not, of young women by their appearance, especially when they did not invite such expressions. What you are condoning is a breech of consent quite similar to laying hands on a woman at your whim.

What is missing in the dictionary definitions you offered is the very real concept of power. That is the essential ingredient, the primary driver of sexism and racism. Sexist and racist expression in words or deeds contain the assumption that one group has the inherent power to slander or debase another group. It is all about power, the power to do or to threaten to do some verbal or physical violence to another class of humans, and to steal away their dignity. Dictionary definitions come up woefully short in clarifying the issue.

quote:

it also might come as a surprise to the comrades with pseudo-heightened sensitivities, but to men, women are sex objects.

But, isn't part of growing into manhood learning to have respect for others and to have restraint in your dealings with them? Of course it is. Consigning women to the role of "sex objects" quite obviously dehumanizes them.

Both in sexism and racism the power to dehumanize is at the nub of the assault and is why many blacks and women have rage toward privileged white men. The privilege is in the power one group assumes over the others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn. Especially after they've been treated to racist attacks like yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn. Especially after they've been treated to racist attacks like yours.

But what makes the boys learn from mistakes? Having to deal with consequences from them.

Several of the boys have already dealt with consequences from these behaviors, yet continue to exhibit the behaviors. So the consequences are raised.

They are having limitations placed on extracurricular activities, which are privileges, not rights. They are not being kicked off the team, they are not having scholarships revoked, they are not being suspended from classes.

If my son was part of this, I would tell him that a) he should be glad that this was all the punishment the school was giving him, b) that he was going to face more when he got home from the single meatslab that raised him, and that c) if he wanted people to treat him like a man rather than a special snowflake then he needed to learn to take his punishment like a man and keep his mouth shut during his Title IX sensitivity training.

I mean, isn't that how real men are supposed to be raised?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn. Especially after they've been treated to racist attacks like yours.

But what makes the boys learn from mistakes? Having to deal with consequences from them.

Several of the boys have already dealt with consequences from these behaviors, yet continue to exhibit the behaviors. So the consequences are raised.

They are having limitations placed on extracurricular activities, which are privileges, not rights. They are not being kicked off the team, they are not having scholarships revoked, they are not being suspended from classes.

If my son was part of this, I would tell him that a) he should be glad that this was all the punishment the school was giving him, b) that he was going to face more when he got home from the single meatslab that raised him, and that c) if he wanted people to treat him like a man rather than a special snowflake then he needed to learn to take his punishment like a man and keep his mouth shut during his Title IX sensitivity training.

I mean, isn't that how real men are supposed to be raised?

As I've said way more than once in this thread, they were bad boys. The University has the right to punish them because they made public their statements on a university owned system that could be accessed by the general public.

I have no problem punishing them for that.

I had two problems, VML made racist comments while relating the story and can't, or won't, own up to his racism. Also, the Obama administration making up shit out of whole cloth regarding Title IX in order to stifle rights of the accused. I've provided links discussing that and so have others.

Had this been done via text only, on their own private cell phones, or by email not related to, or owned by, the University, I'd have a different opinion.

Now, having said that, another time, I'd like to point out that I pretty much agree with your take on their punishment and applaud you if that is what you would do a a parent. Obviously, from all of the special little snowflakes we keep seeing at university, not enough parents hold your attitude, with which I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Vincent, using the dictionary definitions of the terms "sexist" and "racist", please explain exactly how what these students did fit those definitions.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with the notion that sexist behavior might include expressing opinions about the sexual desirability, or not, of young women by their appearance, especially when they did not invite such expressions. What you are condoning is a breech of consent quite similar to laying hands on a woman at your whim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Vincent, using the dictionary definitions of the terms "sexist" and "racist", please explain exactly how what these students did fit those definitions.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with the notion that sexist behavior might include expressing opinions about the sexual desirability, or not, of young women by their appearance, especially when they did not invite such expressions. What you are condoning is a breech of consent quite similar to laying hands on a woman at your whim.

um because words matter and the dictionary is typically a good place to find their meaning.

as i said, i have a problem when lefties re-define words for their own purpose.

what the players did may indeed be offensive, it is not however, racist nor sexist---except for to people who do what i just said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Yes, and it shows us what the Alt left thinks of Free Speach.

Free speech is a right that applies to protection from the government, not private institutions. Opinions on the matter are irrelevant. That is just fact.

The facts are that the institution is governed by Title VI and Title IX. The government under the Obama Admistration set those specific standards, including such things as diminishing the rights of the accused. Your response is pretty ignorant and if you were a right winger VML would say you were a lier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<Fast Reply.>

In my opinion, some of this is off of the mark.

First, whether people agree with it or not, I would have to imagine this falls under the respective University's Code of Conduct. In turn, again for whatever terms these folks were on the athletic teams, so they voluntarily agreed to additional conditions of conduct. As such, since they are putting on those jerseys, they are considered "representatives" of the institution, which is usually a tighter set of guidelines.

Third, (and I can't believe anybody missed this) at least some of them used a bulletin board linked to the University's name. That puts their so-called 'free speech' under whatever terms and conditions of the sponsor. (Anybody reminded of ToS at this point? You should be.) Nobody stopped these people from saying whatever they wanted on the street. Linked to the school? Whole different ball of string.

Aren't some of you folks the same ones that say universities shouldn't have 'safe spaces' for victims of crimes because institutions of higher education are supposed to be preparing people for the real world? Seems to me, if you really want an even playing field, it has to be looked at the same. How many of you would be retained in your employment if you wrote the same, exact thing and plastered it on the company letterhead or website?



ETA - Just for bonus, I do happen to be of the opinion that a huge majority of people playing collegiate athletics probably are privileged. What's the percent of people who actually get to do that in the US?

You are correct in what you've said except for two things.

The Obama Adminstration has had attorney's reinterpret Title IX and forced (if force can be applied to a liberal government agency forcing a liberal institution to be more liberal) universities to redefine codes of conduct. Those changes required by the Feds would probably not be mainstream.

Second, you take an 18 year old boy and offer him a soccer scholarship to an Ivy League school and he'll most likely sign anything to get in. I'll give you an example. A...relative of mine...signed to play ball at a large well resprcted institution. The school took him in at 190 pounds and nine months later had him at 260 with all of the steroids pumped into him. Yes, he willingly took the steroids as the team directed. He was scouted by the pros, both baseball and football. He was assured of a good university education and a career in the pros. He played two years until he had a career ending injury. The school sent a well respected member of the athletic dept. to him while he was recovering in the hospital and still on drugs. The school talked him into signing away his scholarship for the good of the team. Today, he sits on permanent disability because of what the steroids did to his heart. Signing away his scholarship meant he had to leave school because he couldn't afford school without the scholarship. 18-year old boys, and their parents, can't understand what they are agreeing to with the school.


However, none of that trumps doing what they did on the university server.

Nobody was arguing they weren't bad boys. In fact, I was only arguing that VML was telling the story as only a racist could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

To the bold (I added) above. LMAO. Sure, boys NEVER talk about girls until they go and ask permission of the girls. Hey, you'd fit right in with Obama's fascist rules. Jees.

You are trying to inch out from the context of the OP, much in the way you might inch your shoe under the wall of the bathroom stall in Minneapolis International Airport.

Your disregard and disrespect for the concept of consent is appalling and glaringly ignorant in the context of a BDSM Forum. Management really needs to stop you thirteen year olds building a Profile. Jees

quote:

To the "growing into manhood" idiotic statement. Read what you said..."growing" not grown. I believe these bad boys will learn.

More boring "boys will be boys" apologies. But elementary schools do not allow little boys to strike little girls without consequences; no reason for universities to tolerate the immature application of white male privileged power.

Wooden-fucking-dummy

Do you actually read what you write? I'll ignore the childish attempt to be clever. But, you're making an equivalency of discussing pussy with your peers and hitting little girls.

quote:

Oh, and, your screed on power is BS. The concept was made up by welfare pimps like Jackson and Sharpton so they could be racist with impunity. I understand that small minded people took up the concept and are still trying to propagate it generally. Yet, just as they can make up definitions out of nothing, I can ignore them and laugh at the little people who use it to hide behind while offering up racist pap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Yes, and it shows us what the Alt left thinks of Free Speach.

Free speech is a right that applies to protection from the government, not private institutions. Opinions on the matter are irrelevant. That is just fact.

The facts are that the institution is governed by Title VI and Title IX. The government under the Obama Admistration set those specific standards, including such things as diminishing the rights of the accused. Your response is pretty ignorant and if you were a right winger VML would say you were a lier.

Titles VI and IX were passed 45+ years ago when Obama was in grade school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
When you are 18, you are legally an adult and you can sign a contract.
When I was 18, I accepted a scholarship knowing full well that if I violated the terms of said contract(scholarship) it would be rescinded.
What is the fucking problem?

You accept a contract.
You follow the rules and get the goodies.
or
You don't follow the rules and you get booted.

Sounds like a bunch of whiny assed little entitled bitches. (of all colors, nationalities, sexual orientations and genders)

When you accept a scholarship (or even admission) to an institute of higher learning whether it be podunk community college or the height of the Ive League, you sign a piece of paper.
That paper has expectations that you are to follow.

Don't follow em, yerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrOUT. Tough shit. You're an adult. Take it like a fucking adult.

quote:

The university should get off its sexual high horse.

Harvard University is losing its mind. Yesterday, it canceled the remainder of its men’s soccer season. The reason? It discovered that the team had created and maintained a document that purported to “rate” members of the Harvard women’s soccer team on the basis of their “perceived sexual appeal and physical appearance.” Those who’ve seen the document say that freshman players were “ranked by number, given written and photographic descriptions of their appearance, and assigned assumed sexual behavior.” This is no small penalty. The team was contending for an Ivy League championship and seemed poise to make the NCAA tournament. By canceling the season, Harvard forfeits all remaining games and opts out of postseason play. Every player and coach is punished, regardless of their level of participation in the “scouting report.”

This is no small penalty. The team was contending for an Ivy League championship and seemed poise to make the NCAA tournament. By canceling the season, Harvard forfeits all remaining games and opts out of postseason play. Every player and coach is punished, regardless of their level of participation in the “scouting report.”

To be clear, I can easily judge the document — sight unseen — as immoral. But I’m one of those crazy, dangerous, religious nutjobs who believes that sexual activity should be reserved for a lifelong covenant marriage between husband and wife. Moreover, my clearly insane and oppressive beliefs are grounded within a cohesive worldview that asks its adherents to flee from temptation, treat each and every person as a child of God created in His image, and refrain from actions such as drunkenness that impair moral judgment.

Harvard and its morally bankrupt secular peers encourage the polar-opposite worldview. From the moment their young, hormonal students set foot on campus, they’re encouraged to obsess about sex. Free condoms are available by the armload. From Thursday to Sunday, thousands of students drink themselves into literal stupors. And all the while they seek hookups and one-night-stands by, yes, rating appearance on apps such as Tinder, Bumble, and Grindr. Students are encouraged to question and defy virtually every element of traditional, religious moral teaching. Indeed, they’re taught that such teachings are oppressive and malicious. In other words, these colleges intentionally replace Judeo-Christian morality with a bizarre form of quasi-puritanical libertinism that defies everything we know about human nature. The libertinism is obvious. You see it all around you on campus. The puritanism comes later, dropping like a hammer on those people who transgress the shifting, arbitrary moral codes that purport to place boundaries around the bacchanal. These schools beg students to play with fire, then come flying in with fire extinguishers only after someone gets thoroughly burned.

What, exactly, is the punishable offense committed by these soccer players? Is it talking sexually about a student without their consent? Well then, virtually every student in America should forfeit whatever remaining intercollegiate or intramural games are left on their schedules. Is it reducing those words to writing? Well, then, in this age where texts, e-mails, snapchats, and listservs increasingly replace the spoken word, teams will still be gutted.

It seems the real offense here was being dumb enough to get caught. Either that, or Harvard really does want to stamp out any and all sexual discussion or commentary absent consent, even as it takes pains not to suppress sexual expression and creativity: Speak like a Victorian gentleman, live like Long Dong Silver. Only idiots believe this can work.

Compounding the madness, these same campus ideologues look at the wreckage, survey the damage, and still try to ruthlessly suppress the Christian voices who offer a better way. Gordon College is one of the safest colleges in America, a place where a woman can live and learn almost entirely free of the fear of sexual assault, meeting men who will treat her with dignity and respect. Yet its accreditation was recently threatened precisely because it dissents from the sexual revolution.

There is nothing more absurd than watching colleges that are so rife with binge drinking and sexual-misconduct complaints that they’re under active investigation by the Department of Education launch witch-hunts against campus Christian groups who dare believe in chastity. Harvard soccer players were wrong to do what they did, but I can’t applaud the school. It made its own decision to turn its back on Christ decades ago. It has done more than just set the stage for pain and heartbreak — it has incentivized and encouraged sexual adventurousness. Selective and arbitrary bouts of conscience can’t rescue it from the consequences of sin. They have sown the sexual wind. Now they reap the whirlwind of pain, confusion, and hurt.

quote:

in short, talking about women as sexual objects is not sexism and mentioning racial differences while doing so is not racism.

otherwise, as ive said repeatedly now, youre expanding the definitions of those terms to mean something they have not historically meant.

quote:

Harvard soccer players were wrong to do what they did, but I can’t applaud the school. It made its own decision to turn its back on Christ decades ago.