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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

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

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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-soylent} {at} {asdf.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