Students Expelled for ‘Ku Klux Klan Starter Pack’ Instagram Posts ‘Obviously’ Have No First Amendment Protection, Appeals Court Rules

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

28 minutes ago, Didba said:

Luckily, I like to think my posting style has lended me a certain amount of credibility with many on the eagle's nest, amongst other places on AUfamily.

Yep, you are held in high esteem. Mentioned Didba at my Byron’s BBQ table one morning and the place looked like an EF Hutton commercial.

[homersapien 11,393]

26 minutes ago, Didba said:

My generalization was a bit too broad.  Unfortunately, every war since the dawn of monarchies have pretty much reflected this adage. Beside the point, I know. Thanks for sharing the book review.

Such history is my way of dealing with the "guilt" of being a southerner.

(Albeit, I am pretty sure my ancestors fought on the wrong side as part of the unenlightened, poor whites.)

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To be honest, I am not sure if he is as disingenuous as much as he is simply clueless. 

To describe "institutional racism" as a "recently coined" political term is a prime example.

It is not a term used as frequently in the past as it is today. Social media and pertinent events have contributed. Maybe recently aware would be a better term. 
 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Institutional racism has been prevalent in American society since colonial times, beginning with its overt expressions in the institution of slavery, Black codes, and Jim Crow segregation.

Here is your historical *facts New article added.

*   Jeff Wallenfeldt

Aug 10, 2022

 

This article was added in August of last year which means Institutional Racism has been retroactively inserted into history.  Actually proved my point.

Edited January 4, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[autigeremt 6,652]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

unless its a gay person, of course, because then its clearly a choice.

/s

To each their own. None of my business who people love. 

[homersapien 11,393]

21 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

It is not a term used as frequently in the past as it is today. Social media and pertinent events have contributed. Maybe recently aware would be a better term. 
 

 

I respectfully disagree.

It is not recently revived terminology.  The only change has been in the increase of media. If one thinks it is used more frequently it's only because there's more to hear and read in total (regarding racism).

In other words, it's always been a "thing", and has always been described as such.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is your historical *facts New article added.

*   Jeff Wallenfeldt

Aug 10, 2022

 

This article was added in August of last year which means Institutional Racism has be retroactively into history.  Actually proved my point.

"Institutional Racism has be retroactively into history"

That makes no sense.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Institutional Racism has be retroactively into history"

That makes no sense.

Fixed:  retroactively inserted into history

I’m sure will agree now.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Let’s simplify this entire thread. 
 

A: free speech comes with boundaries (or should) 

B: the klan is a bunch of fools who need to be eradicated from every corner of society

C. Hard to say what SCOTUS will decide but the makeup of the court puts them in the crosshairs of speculation 

D. old white southerners are racists at birth and must carry the cross of slavery from their ancestors on their backs until someone from outside the south decides to remove it.

E. The clock is ticking until it no longer matters

Carry On 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by autigeremt

[homersapien 11,393]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Fixed:  retroactively inserted into history

I’m sure will agree now.

Well, that begs the question: inserted for what purpose? 

To describe institutional racism of course, which has existed throughout human history.

(Now you're being disingenuous.)

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I respectfully disagree.

It is not recently revived terminology.  The only change has been in the increase of media. If one thinks it is used more frequently it's only because there's more to hear and read in total (regarding racism).

In other words, it's always been a "thing", and has always been described as such.

 

Don’t know what you are disagreeing about. We basically said the same thing

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

3 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I can understand appreciating the end of slavery, but the way you talk about it seems to be used as a way to put up a smokescreen from acknowledging what more needs to happen.

First off, thanks for the reply. To the quote: It wasn’t meant as a smokescreen.  This would too simplistic to solve this complex issue.  It is a way to stripe away any ill feelings one might have toward a person or event and that has to happen before healing can take place

3 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I know some call for blaming people of today for slavery of the past, but I feel all that accomplishes is distracting for the real issues at hand. I understand the frustration of that, but I do not feel that is what the majority of people are trying to bring to light or asking to solve.

I hope you are right.

 

3 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I think I understand what you are saying, but I do feel you are doing a disservice to what Malcolm X also accomplished around the same time. You may not like what it looked like, but it wasn't all Mr. King who put in the work. Mr. King acknowledged Malcom X and what he did. He stated they may not see eye to eye, but he held deep affection for him. I believe in peaceful protest, but I won't discount the anger that bein on the receiving side of racism sparks in people.

Dr. King was successful because he went about change in an agreeable way IMO.  I am sure Malcolm X played a pivotal roll in the outcome, but, at the time, America was not receptive to Malcolm X’s philosophy.  I agree it can be emotional to be picked on for something you don’t have control over especially if it happens on a regular basis by the same people.  I hope, for the most part, it is in the past

3 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

Sure that can be true, but that doesn't mean Cole has to explain. There is plenty out there that we can all research without having to involve others.

Correct, Cole doesn’t have to respond. A lot of what is available is usually on the extreme ends of the spectrum and it is difficult to pick the truth.

3 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

. I feel that searching out for any person of color to agree with you instead of trying to understand the rest who disagree is a way to cling to the comfort of your own opinions.

Is this what you think I did?  Malcolm X is a prime example of a person that had an ideal, but it was extreme for the time.  It pushed the envelope.  Abram X Kendi, Louis Farrakhan and Nikole Hannah-Jones are examples of modern day extremists.  Do you agree with what they are selling?  

Yes, they are the extreme and as such are the loudest while conservatives like Larry, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, et al are not as loud and consequently do not have the following of the others.  Where is the middle?

It is not as simple as one side or the other for any group.

4 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

You made the claim that christianity as a unified group fought slavery.

The claim was Western Society (largely Christian nations England, US) fought slavery.  Christianity has been used as motivation, good and bad, for such things as you pointed out.  Christianity, by itself, doesn’t really field an army.

4 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I think this is of very high importance since I believe we all will be called to stand by our beliefs one day. I would rather delve in myself and form my own opinion rather than regurgitate things that make me feel safe and not truly understand what I am standing for.

We will all face this and we will learn as we continue this life until that day.  Lord willing we will not stop learning and growing.

[AuburnNTexas 7,158]

There is no doubt in my mind there is racism in our society by people like the students who did the KKK starter kits  and tried to defend it as freedom of speech and in institutional ways.  I am a great believer in freedom of speech but there are limits and those students crossed the limit. There is also red lining on loans making it more difficult for people to get loans and when they do the loans are at exorbitant interest rates making it almost impossible to get out of debt. Red lining is not limited to people of color but is by neighborhood often based on the wealth of the population. Poor white people have it as rough as poor people in other ethnic groups. 

What gives me pause is my next door neighbor's who are from Nigeria. They tell me stories about their country where their equivalent of racism is Tribalism and religion. Where people are attacked and killed because of the tribe they are from or what their religion is. Sadly the history of the world is about one group attacking and taking from another group. Depending on the time in history and location the oppressors might have been Mongols, Romans, Persians, Aztecs, Incans, Zulu's, English, Dutch, American's etc.

I am not naïve as I know that driving while Black is a real thing in some places I have seen it.  My wife is Hispanic and my two son's look Hispanic my daughter does not. They have run into a few people who treat them differently because they appear to be Hispanic but they also tell me that because they are only half Hispanic they sometimes get the same type of treatment from Hispanic's. That is the sad part the good part is they all tell me the overwhelming number of people whether White, Hispanic, Black or Asian treat them well. 

I am old enough to remember the segregated south (Black and White) and the north where you had segregated neighborhoods ( Italian, Polish, Irish, etc.).   Things are better now but not perfect. 

While I know Racism exists the biggest issue is certain areas that never change. Inner city areas that are gang infested where you have to join a gang to survive that have poor school's, limited job opportunities, higher crime. Sadly some poor rural areas that have similar issues. 

We also have rich people who are out of touch with middle class and lower middle class people. As an example whether you like what Abbot did or not when he sent illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard home to our super wealthy. They kept them for one day and then sent them to a military base then you heard people from Martha's Vineyard bragging of how they set the example for compassionate care for the immigrants.  While we have poor border towns so overwhelmed by the numbers yet they still find places to help these people.

We still need to address issues in this country but we have school systems where math and English scores are going down and the big issue is gender identity and keeping that from Parents or not telling kids that got rewards they could put on college applications that they had received the awards. The reason for hiding the awards was to not hurt the feelings of the kids who didn't get rewards. 

You are starting to see more and more parents get involved at School board meetings and these parents are acrsoss all racial divides and their 1st priority is to have their kids get a solid education in the three R's ( Reading Riting, Rithmetic)   as the old saying goes.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, Didba said:

See I want to agree with you but then I remember how much support the tiki torchers received without being ostracized by a large margin of society. Ya know: "good people on both sides".

Not an attack on you, just pointing out I was nodding my head along as I read but then part kinda stuck out.

I appreciate your point of view and at least reading with an open mind.  Thanks.

[cbo 7,863]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

I have been trying to reach these people for months.  I honestly have gotten exhausted of it lately and barely ever get on this site besides the eagles nest.

Same here. Posting on the site less and less. For many reasons. It's starting to feel less like a fun diversion from life and more like a weird, addictive waste of time. 

[cbo 7,863]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Hey, they dismiss old, white, liberal, educated men too.

Also, middle aged, white, liberal, educated men!

[cbo 7,863]

18 hours ago, cole256 said:

I feel you. And I have several that step in at times so I don't want that to seen what I'm saying. 

I'm saying once I got that label, no matter how untrue that's what I am on here. You notice when people start to argue with me it never is about the problem that day, it will go into I saw you say this a few years ago, and actually most of it is actually I don't like the way you said this. You think you the only person that know it all. I reply you have NEVER seen me make a claim like that. Reply you think everybody else is stupid. I reply, I've never said anything like that, all I do is say what I think and then post examples or logic to back it up just like everybody else on here. Reply ohhhh ok. 

What can I do with that? The more I try to explain myself the more I'm then labeled for arguing. And I wouldn't want you to get labeled with me. To be honest I wouldn't want anybody to be treated the way I'm treated here. I wouldn't want you to have to deal with that if you didn't have to.

I've posted more inside stuff or called more inside stuff in football and basketball mind you than almost anybody. Anybody else on here that does that you can't even tell them they might be wrong without a group coming at you. Every time I post something that's not seen I'm stupid, dumb,and all of that. Nobody else gets that really consistently, then it's a problem when I'm proved right for me to say this is what I said last year when you called me an idiot.......

I say all that to say it is what it is. This forum isn't a fair place. If I'm labeled to be a villain then so be it. I expect it now. I guess it is sad that I've lost faith in people slightly. I am at a point where I don't really care to debate with white men that's a little older about political stuff. 

I LOVE talking sports though. 

I've watched this happen. You have great inside information and insight. I know I've supported you many times on here because I agree with what you're saying. It's never gone well for me but I don't care. It is much worse for you. There are plenty of people who try to antagonize you and I think we both understand their motivation. 

Honestly, this forum in general is weird. You warned me before, but I didn't quite understand. This is trivial to the discussion at hand, but my dislike for Freeze has made me a target of a different kind. Everyone wants to argue with whatever I say now, because we should all blindly support the new leader, no matter what. 

But, again, this is boring and pales in comparison to the actual racism you have to deal with here on a daily basis. I always wonder what these people are like in real life. I'm sure I could spot their beliefs very quickly because I've always lived around these people. But do they show their ass so readily in real life? I doubt it. 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by cbo

[Didba 5,256]

12 hours ago, cbo said:

Same here. Posting on the site less and less. For many reasons. It's starting to feel less like a fun diversion from life and more like a weird, addictive waste of time. 

I have IRL friends that I mention my posting habits too and they are just like "why dude???"

Edited January 5, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yep, you are held in high esteem. Mentioned Didba at my Byron’s BBQ table one morning and the place looked like an EF Hutton commercial.

Hah, thanks for this, I sounded so fake in that statement. Rough.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Didba

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, Didba said:

I have friends that I mention my posting habits too and they are just like "why dude???"

LOL - that’s so true….  My wife sees me typing away on my phone from time to time and says “talking politics again?   Why do you bother?”   I just shrug because I don’t really have a good answer.

6 hours ago, cbo said:

I've watched this happen. You have great inside information and insight. I know I've supported you many times on here because I agree with what you're saying. It's never gone well for me but I don't care. It is much worse for you. There are plenty of people who try to antagonize you and I think we both understand their motivation. 

Honestly, this forum in general is weird. You warned me before, but I didn't quite understand. This is trivial to the discussion at hand, but my dislike for Freeze has made me a target of a different kind. Everyone wants to argue with whatever I say now, because we should all blindly support the new leader, no matter what. 

Even someone I tried to be cool with has gone out of his way to let me know he is sending DM's to you and others to try to tear me down. Just baby s***. I honestly don't care about his opinion, but it's not great knowing someone is probably lying about me to people I actually respect. And I've never seen these people support you when it matters. 

But, again, all this is boring and pales in comparison to the actual racism you have to deal with here on a daily basis. I always wonder what these people are like in real life. I'm sure I could spot their beliefs very quickly because I've always lived around these people. But do they show their ass so readily in real life? I doubt it. 

 

I read this post, and Cole’s that this post quoted, and if you hid the names and a few of the specific details, it could almost fit exactly with how a conservative feels on this site.   It doesn’t take much to have a label and stigma thrown on oneself as soon as a statement or opinion is made by either side.   I try to avoid doing that and am certain I’ve come up short, especially after I’ve felt it’s happened to me.  At least there’s one area we all have common ground. - War Eagle!  

[ChristoThor 70]

I will start by saying any portions I am leaving out from your previous response post are things I feel have been covered enough to not continue discussing. I also want to state that when I am using "you" it is a general collective "you" and not personally directed at you since I am responding to you.

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Dr. King was successful because he went about change in an agreeable way IMO.  I am sure Malcolm X played a pivotal roll in the outcome, but, at the time, America was not receptive to Malcolm X’s philosophy.  I agree it can be emotional to be picked on for something you don’t have control over especially if it happens on a regular basis by the same people.  I hope, for the most part, it is in the past

My point in bringing up Malcolm X is that you can't attribute all progress from the 60's to King. That is not a full picture and is misleading. It is also not a full picture to only include Malcom X as well, but my point isn't to provide a complete picture in the argument (I will be honest, I don't have the complete picture and I feel this forum post isn't the place to explore that). It is to point out that it is rare to be able to point to only one person or action to explain larger pieces of history.

I really want to address the bolded and underlined portion above. If you are going to talk to people about racism, reducing it to being picked on is a terrible way to establish connection and trust.

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this what you think I did?  Malcolm X is a prime example of a person that had an ideal, but it was extreme for the time.  It pushed the envelope.  Abram X Kendi, Louis Farrakhan and Nikole Hannah-Jones are examples of modern day extremists.  Do you agree with what they are selling?  

Yes, they are the extreme and as such are the loudest while conservatives like Larry, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, et al are not as loud and consequently do not have the following of the others.  Where is the middle?

It is not as simple as one side or the other for any group.

To a degree, yes I think you did search out an agreeing statement for yourself. In this response, you are actually acknowledging others who have contributed to the society wide conversation of racism so I can say that it was a mostly incorrect assumption. However, I also feel the need to state up until this point I have not seen you acknowledge any one on the opposite side of your view points. You come across as disingenuous when you are only referring to one side of the discussion without at least engaging with and attempting to understand the opposition's ideology/arguments/statements. When I speak of understanding, what I personally mean is not just understanding what is said to be able to respond, but to understand the mindset, background, and motivation that formed the other person's response. 

That was my entire point. I am saying that it isn't simple and that for true understanding you need both sides. It isn't about saying one side is completely right or wrong or completely falling in with one side or the other. It is not simple I completely agree. If you are wanting to engage with the topic in a meaningful way, you should put in the time and effort to understand where all involved parties are coming from. This is not easy and in some cases not even possible, but to dismiss an entire side of a conversation is not the right answer. You need to push past discomfort and try to truly understand where they are coming from so you can gain a better picture.

Again I feel the need to point out the tone used to discuss this. This is something that applies to all people involved in the conversation. If you talk in a way that belittles other's thoughts, it won't help the conversation. That being said, I do feel the pressure to maintain a helpful and understanding tone is on the side of those who were not wronged by whatever action is causing the conversation. In this case, that would be white people. I have stated before and again below that consistency of belief and view points across a group of people can't be expected and I stand by that. However, when someone is hurt and wronged if someone truly wants to help them they will not talk down to them. If you can't do that, you probably aren't the one to help. I want to also state that helping someone does not mean hiding from the truth or changing your beliefs to be in complete unison with them. People can be hurt or wronged and still be incorrect themselves (I mention this for situations at large this is not directed at the issue of racism specifically). It is possible to hear someone out, actively engage with what they are saying, and still walk away disagreeing.

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The claim was Western Society (largely Christian nations England, US) fought slavery.  Christianity has been used as motivation, good and bad, for such things as you pointed out.  Christianity, by itself, doesn’t really field an army.

I understand the claim. My point in bringing christianity up is in regard to my first sentence of the paragraph you were responding to, which I am including again here. 

It is hard to look at any group of people and expect consistency of belief across their entire population

 

I want to finish by saying. I am not trying to attack you with all of this. You have been responding to me and I have been using that to address concerns I have with how people discuss racism and other issues. I feel it has been related to what you have said, but some of what I have said may not apply to you personally.

[homersapien 11,393]

11 hours ago, cbo said:

Also, middle aged, white, liberal, educated men!

Hmmmmm.....  I'm starting to recognize a pattern here.

[homersapien 11,393]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Don’t know what you are disagreeing about. We basically said the same thing

I was trying to make a distinction between the qualitative and quantitative difference for our experiencing the term "institutional racism" (if true).

  Qualitatively speaking, it's not a new or novel term conceptually. It's been recognized for generations, as it's existed for generations.

The only reason we may be hearing it more now , is due to the growth of media in general, not because the term has been recently invented or coined.

Perhaps that's a little subtle, but it directly addresses M4's contention the term was recently coined (by liberals) as a political meme.

Edited January 5, 2023 by homersapien

[Didba 5,256]

18 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is your historical *facts New article added.

*   Jeff Wallenfeldt

Aug 10, 2022

 

This article was added in August of last year which means Institutional Racism has been retroactively inserted into history.  Actually proved my point.

No, it doesn't. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

It looks like the term "institutional racism" originated in 1967.  According to wikipedia (yuck) this publication coined the phrase: https://archive.org/details/blackpowerpoliti00carm_0/page/4/mode/2up

I'll admit it the terms origin is more recent than I actually thought but its origin is also not as recent as others have tried to make it.