Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the May-31-1921 dept.

The NYT reports that after a video was posted on YouTube that appeared to show members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon at University of Oklahoma singing a racist chant, the organization’s board decided “with no mental reservation whatsoever that this chapter needed to be closed immediately.” The video shows a group of young white people in formal wear riding a bus and singing a chant laden with antiblack slurs and at least one reference to lynching. A grinning young man wearing a tuxedo and standing in the aisle of the bus pumps his fist in the air as he chants, while a young woman seated nearby claps. The chant vows that African-Americans will “never” be allowed to join the campus chapter.

The nine-second video was uploaded to YouTube on Sunday by a student group, the Unheard Movement, that first identified the people in it as members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, although the group did not indicate how it obtained the video or when it was filmed. University president, David Boren, said in an emailed statement that the administration was also investigating the video. “I have just been informed of the video, which purports to show students to show students engaging in a racist chant. We are investigating to determine if the video involved OU students. If O.U. students are involved, this behavior will not be tolerated and will be addressed very quickly,” said Boren. “This behavior is reprehensible and contrary to all of our values.” Students marched on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Monday to protest the video.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:02PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:02PM (#156155) Homepage

    As somebody who is sometimes racist, I think that the video is disgusting.

    Throwing parties in blackface while eating fried chicken and drinking malt liquor, or dressed up as Mexicans wearing sombreros, or Asians wearing gongs on their heads, I'm cool with that.

    But I am not cool with calling for the killing and banning of people. That kind of shit wasn't cool in '60's Alabama and it isn't cool now anywhere. What the fuck were those idiots thinking?

    I hope those fools get the shit beat out of them. If not for their hatred, for their stupidity.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by cmn32480 on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:19PM

    by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:19PM (#156164) Journal

    Is being sometimes racist like being a little pregnant?

    --
    "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:49PM (#156177)

      You can have degrees easily.

      (What he said) - Ok with making fun of racial and cultural traits.

      Being Archie Bunker - Thinking a group is worthless and ranting about it

      Going KKK - Attacking individual members of the group, engaging in institutional attacks on the group (Examples include segregation, blocking voting, unequal in court/law (no matter what the letter says))

      The first two are free speech issues. The first doesn't concern me except that it often goes with the others.
      The second is best countered with ridicule and public scorn.
      The third is morally repugnant, and needs to be opposed and punished at every turn.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:50PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:50PM (#156178)

      I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:00PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:00PM (#156184) Journal

      "Little bit racist" here seems to mean: "I'm xenophopic, with an insecurity that sees difference in people as a form of opposition and threat. Therefore, I transfer my fear and mistrust into aggression and denigration of the unfamiliar or different. I armor myself by inflating tropes and stereotypes without either critical self-examination or honest investigation of context, history and broader sociology and psychology. But I don't want to kill anybody because of it. My cowardice isn't driving that level of panic."

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:08PM (#156193)

        The Aussie here again. I take it that you are a white American male? Would you ever live in a predominantly black area of an American city for a prolonged period of time? I often read white Americans writing that they 'are not racist', but at the same time they would not be willing to live in a black neighborhood. Would not there be less segregated cities in America if more whites lived in blaxk neighborhoods?

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:27PM (#156203)

          Black neighborhoods are typically poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods typically have higher crime, lower property values, and worse public schools. Even successful minorities (not that minorities are immune to bias) will avoid poor neighborhoods due to the problems associated with them.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:27PM (#156204)

          Since predominately black neighborhoods are also predominately poor neighborhoods, you aren't going to see many people voluntarily moving to them, regardless of race.

          Go somewhere like hawaii, where admittedly, there are very few blacks, but also where whites aren't even the largest minority, much less a majority, and you see much less racial segregation in housing. Its still segregated by wealth though.

          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:26PM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:26PM (#156383) Journal

            Since predominately black neighborhoods are also predominately poor neighborhoods, you aren't going to see many people voluntarily moving to them, regardless of race.

            You havn't met hipsters then. Williamsburg was a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. Now its high priced hipster heaven and mostly white. They even pushed into parts of Bushwick and now Prospect Lefferts Gardens and even encroaching into crown hights, all black areas. My brother lives in Prospect Lefferts Gardens and his GF is a hipster poster child.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:30PM (#156387)

              So if whites don't want to live in non-white neighborhoods, they're racists?

              And when whites do move into non-white neighborhoods, they're racists?

              Is there anywhere where whites aren't racists?

              • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:16PM

                by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:16PM (#156710) Journal

                Is there anywhere where whites aren't racists?

                Yup: All white neighborhoods.

                So to solve racism we simply have to make all neighborhoods white. Easy peasy.

            • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:09AM

              by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:09AM (#156460)

              Gentrification [wikipedia.org]
              Believe it or not, this is intentional! Hipsters don't just move into "poor neighborhoods". Hipsters chase bohemians (who need/choose to live cheaply), and then Capitalists chase hipsters (who have money to spend)...

              --
              Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
              • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:34PM

                by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:34PM (#156731) Journal

                You said it better.
                I used to frequent the budding Williamsburg area before the real hipsters came flooding in. A mutual friend found a bar tucked away that was ran by two girls who were artists. The bar usually saw the artsy crowd and was frequently hosting all sorts of interesting music nights on saturdays. I became friendly with them and we were regulars, one of the girls even made sure we had reserved seats at the head of the bar. Most of the original brick industrial buildings were still standing and housed businesses. It was kind of dingy and most of the bohemian types were artists who rented the industrial buildings to make studios and live in them. Some were even communes where upward of a dozen artists, transients, backpackers or gutter punk types would live for various periods of time. Then slowly the hipsters started pouring in. The commercial building owners saw the opportunity to cash out big time and sold their properties. Now the place is clogged with gross modern (meaning cheap as hell to build) architecture erasing the old dingy character the old Brooklyn neighborhood had. It was sanitized and overpriced. Now the yuppies have taken over and high prices high rises are built on the east river on the old primarily industrial Kent Ave.

                • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:31PM

                  by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:31PM (#156772)

                  "Disgusting" indeed. But the property values went up!! (So it must be an improvement.)

                  --
                  Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:51PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:51PM (#156236) Journal

          I'm mixed - pass as "all-white".
          I've lived in all kinds of neighborhoods - next to golf courses, next to housing projects. I've had better neighbors near the project. ;-)

          But US is HUGE. I don't know anybody who wants to live in South Side Chicago, or the segregated neighborhoods in Cleveland or Detroit - black or white.

          Lot different in San Diego...

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:15PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:15PM (#156195) Homepage

        "Little bit racist" means that stereotypes are often true, and when faced with inordinate amounts of them on a per-person per-race (or ethnicity, whatever) basis in x amount of time, I will not only acknowledge those stereotypes but hold them up for ridicule.

        Yeah, unlike all of you perfect holier-than-thou logical enlightened beings, I am imperfect. And I love it.

        Suck my cock.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by mtrycz on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:00PM

          by mtrycz (60) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:00PM (#156245)

          Neither am I perfect. But I won't choose to dwell in imperfection, there's no life in that.

          --
          In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:28PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:28PM (#156385)

            I don't think he chooses to dwell in it but rather acknowledge the fact and move on.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:15PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:15PM (#156196)

      I think he is just accepting the new SJW redefinition and that for all intents and purposes they now have the power to define the word. Everybody who disagrees with them on any detail is a racist, therefore anyone who isn't a SJW is a racist. They use this power to end debate, nobody wants to be thought of as a racist so when they hurl that at someone they tend to shut up. So I'm a racist, you probably are too. And only when we accept that everyone is a racist can we all laugh at them and start to ignore them. Then we can reclaim the language and restore the word to a useful meaning again.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Pr. L Muishkin on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:18PM

        by Pr. L Muishkin (5143) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:18PM (#156258)

        It's at times like these that I like to produce the full sized, hard bound copy of the OED from my backpack, (it's always adventure time,) and challenge those attempting to redefine a word to see how their definition stacks up against the opinion of people actually paid to define words. If all else fails, I have a very large, heavy, harbound lump of dead tree at my disposal.

        • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:49PM

          by CRCulver (4390) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:49PM (#156271) Homepage

          ...challenge those attempting to redefine a word to see how their definition stacks up against the opinion of people actually paid to define words.

          Are you unaware that the OED, like all modern dictionaries, does not claim to represent what "words really mean" but only reflects the meanings attributed to these words by English-speaking society? The editors of the OED would be the first to admit that words are continually redefined as they are used in discourse, which is a natural and inevitable part of how human language works, and successive editions of the OED have made updates to show those changing usages. The OED entries for "race" and "racism"/"racist" are a good case in point. The term "racism" is used today for somewhat different and expanded things than in earlier decades, and the OED documents that.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:02PM (#156334)

            Are you unaware that the OED, like all modern dictionaries, does not claim to represent what "words really mean" but only reflects the meanings attributed to these words by English-speaking society?

            Indeed. It is closer to the mark to say that dictionaries show usage; they do not proscribe the actual meanings of words.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:43PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:43PM (#156328) Homepage
          Damn, out of mod-points, you'll have to get a disagreeing reply instead.

          Please look up "prescriptive", "proscriptive" and "descriptive" in your OED. And then accept that the OED is almost entirely descriptive, with just a tiny waft of proscriptivity (when making comments, but not judgements, about the archaic, obsolete, vulgar, informal, etc. nature of certain meanings, spellings, or words).

          I'm sure you'll find M-W is the same - what does it say about "supercede" (wrong spelling?), "although" (not a real word?), "clepe" (archaic?) etc?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @01:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @01:59AM (#156457)

            Except that what these people seem to do is outright deny that certain definitions even exist, and just repeat their new definitions over and over again.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by pnkwarhall on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:15AM

          by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:15AM (#156462)

          >>If all else fails, I have a very large, heavy, harbound lump of dead tree at my disposal.
          I wanted to welcome you to Soylent as a new user when I noticed your comment in a different article, but now I get the idea that when you lose/can't win an argument you resort to violence...

          --
          Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:33PM

        by K_benzoate (5036) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:33PM (#156266)

        I refuse to accept their attempt to redefine the word, and I throw it back at them. If they come at me with that "racism = power + prejudice" I'll just accuse them of being racist in turn. Claiming that only certain racial groups can be racist is, by definition, racist thinking. The opposite of this thinking is individualism, allowing people to escape the group identity they were born into and choose their own beliefs and ideas. It would in fact be racist to say that black people are incapable of racism. It's also infantilizing and strips them of agency. You have to allow a group the ability to do wrong in order for right action to have meaning when freely chosen.

        SJWs treat minorities (and women, who aren't a minority but are usually thrown in) as pets. They can do no wrong. It's always the master's fault for mistreating them or socializing them incorrectly. That's supremely bigoted, arrogant, and reprehensible.

        --
        Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:15PM

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:15PM (#156308) Journal
      Racism is a word thrown around a lot, but few really think about what it means.

      Racism is the belief that there are multiple modern human races.

      It's a mistaken belief (all modern humans are the same race, the last time 'interracial' was actually a thing was tens of thousands of years ago before the neanderthals all died out) but it's not, in and of itself, has to do any damage. Lots of people believe lots of silly things and as long as they mind their own business and dont cause harm to others we do not and should not care.

      Obviously, there are dangerous violent racists - they do exist - but the vast majority of racists are harmless.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:42PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:42PM (#156349) Homepage
        > Racism is a word thrown around a lot, but few really think about what it means.
        > Racism is the belief that there are multiple modern human races.

        Nope. None of the useful modern definitions of racism make the presumption that the old-fashioned physical anthropological concept of human races is in any way useful or meaningful. There are some useless modern definitions (used by govenment, in the context of censuses), which cling to some older concepts, but their existance does not support your assertion - governments have never been any good at defining anything, let alone something as complex and touchy as race and racism.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:42AM

        by JNCF (4317) on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:42AM (#156472) Journal

        Race has a biological definition [wikipedia.org] and a cultural definition, [wikipedia.org] the latter of which is reserved for humans. By the biological definiton I believe most anthropologists would actually call Neanderthals a subspecies, not a race, but that's a pretty mushy line.

        Cultural race correlates to genetic markers, but only in the context of a specific place and time. In the USA, a child born to one "black" parent and one "white" parent is called black, even though it is genetically equally similar to both parents. If said child moves to South Africa its will suddenly be called "mixed" instead. Different cultures have different definitions of different races. "Hutus" and "Tutsis" are both black in America.

        • (Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:08PM

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:08PM (#156668) Journal
          "In the USA, a child born to one "black" parent and one "white" parent is called black, even though it is genetically equally similar to both parents. If said child moves to South Africa its will suddenly be called "mixed" instead. Different cultures have different definitions of different races."

          Actually, in the US today, he will be called 'mixed' as well, until and unless he is perceived to have 'made it' at which point he becomes black. See e.g. Barack Obama 'the mixed candidate' became 'the black president.'

          What you are saying was true in the US a few decades ago though. This cultural perception of race can be extremely fluid.

          But I think my point stands. This cultural perception of race is quite simply incorrect, and the flexibility and cultural relativity of the categories should demonstrate that pretty clearly. The word 'race' attributes an objective biological reality to these cultural categories that does not exist in any case.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday March 14 2015, @05:18PM

            by JNCF (4317) on Saturday March 14 2015, @05:18PM (#157808) Journal

            Eh, we're getting into definitions of words now. People certainly use the word "race" in the way I described (or something close to it). They also use it in the sense that you mean. It's confusing, but hey, that's human language for you. You can not like a definition that a word has, but it doesn't stop it form having that definition.

    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:30PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:30PM (#156386) Journal

      It's used for shock value.