Kansas State Football Players Boycott All Football Related Activities
I think we’re about to see just how much power the players can exercise because they just put K-State over a barrel.
A K-State student tweeted something in poor taste regarding George Floyd and the team want the administration to take action.
The tweet.
This is so fascinating because I genuinely don’t have a clue what will happen next, and I certainly don’t think any div 1 college has a schema for what to do here.
Are we burying the lede?.... Kansas St. has a football team?
I find this post offensive.... and hurtful.
In fairness to me... I think we were all pretty drunk by that time in the season.
What season?
Sugar Shane as the leading rusher, ugh
After seeing Shane in the game,im sure a few people were saying "i now know what they mean by a deer in headlights" Scary game to watch
This was the game where I was confident that Hoke was not a good coach and was a poor hire.
I don't know why this post got downvoted that much. This blog tends to trash programs that have either beaten us recently or been more successful than us
Yeah, this comment is going to come to an unpleasant demise!
Clearly the name Bill Snyder doesn’t mean anything to you.
One of my favorite poets
Regardless of his right to free speech, I always find it interesting/humorous when someone says something that, while it may be funny to some, is going to obviously trigger anger in many other people.
You would have to be a total idiot to have seen the events of the last month, and all the emotions they’ve generated, and not think that such a “joke” wouldn’t immediately draw the ire of so many people. He didn’t act in an understanding and compassionate fashion, yet he’s upset that a lot of people are now showing a lack of understanding and compassion towards him.
Yes, he has the right to say it, but sometimes part of the right to say something is accepting the responsibility for what kind of consequences what you say is going to draw.
If I want to go up to a football player at a bar and say he’s nothing but a stupid ass jock, then that’s my right. But I also had better understand he might very well knock me the fuck out and it’s a pretty weak excuse to simply say “I had the right to say it, what’s his problem?” after I wake up in the ER. It also won’t change the fact I got punched out for my words
He was being a smug, and you could argue, racist, little asshole and it ended up exploding in his face and now he wants to be the victim. Maybe he could have done something like this a few months ago and gotten away relatively unscathed, but he picked a REALLY bad time to display his comedic talents.
Ok... Free speech is legally protected and there are legally protected responses to offensive free speech. Physical violence is not one of them.
POTUS disagrees with you (see: Lafayette Square).
He has the right to free speech. That means the government can’t arrest him for saying something. He still gets to deal with the consequences for saying whatever he wants. In this climate, his statement is nothing that anyone with an ounce of civility would want to be associated with right now. No criminal charges, but stigmatized as an insensitive idiot is a fair punishment for his indiscretion here (though I’m sure he’s been and will be called far worse).
There are many cases where a judge has dismissed assault/battery charges because the victim precipitated it with their comments. The Buzz Aldrin/Bart Sibrel episode is one that comes to mind.
I was with you 110% until this phrase: "... you could argue, racist, little asshole... ".
No. This is exactly the kind of stuff we can't be saying. The subject of his topic does have racist undertones, but nothing he said was racist. You (and we as a society) CANNOT make the leap from what he said to implying he, himself, is a racist. It's wrong. No, there is no "you could argue".
Now, maybe he is actually a racist little asshole. But to infer that simply from what he said is exactly what I see wrong with many of the racist claims thrown at people over the past month. It dilutes the actual and proper usage of that claim. It's like crying wolf and diverting people's attention away where there are real wolves that need dealing with. Yes, I'm passionate about this. No, it doesn't mean I'm any less passionate about dealing with racism. Don't make that claim either.
looks racist af to me
The guy is trying to create a chapter of a white nationalist student organization on the KSU campus. By definition,he is racist. Part of the strategy that is employed by the 'alt-right' is to make snarky, offensive comments on social media to get attention from people that clearly understand what it is that they are expressing without coming out and publicly pledging allegiance to the KKK or the Nazi party.
He's not some random kid that made an ill-advised post on social media. That post was part of a nationwide marketing strategy.
Then the information you've just posted needs to be gathered by the appropriate people at ksu & put together with this recent tweet to create a context that his speech is repeatedly not in keeping with the university's published guidelines for student conduct & interaction. That is a proper procedure to expel a student.
But what's being argued here is a classic in the distract & divide school, which is focusing on this tweet alone and debating whether action against the student means political correctness has gone too far!
And the context in which the story was originally posted here, what rights or responsibilities the athletes have in protesting this student's social media posts, is getting lost in the purple haze!
That topic interests me far more than whether 86% of college professors are liberal! It's proven & documented in innumerable works that the higher one's education level rises, the more liberal one tends to be.
So if you've got 10,000 professors and 98% of them have achieved Doctoral status in their field, I think 86% sounds LOW!
"That is a proper procedure to expel a student."
Agreed. He shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and he shouldn't be expelled at the whim of the student athletes. There are proper procedures that need to be followed and he shouldn't be expelled without a full investigation.
That being said, I don't think KSU would have even opened an investigation if they hadn't been pushed by the athletes. I finished grad school at Indiana University in 2016. While I was there, I became aware of rampant recruitment efforts that were being conducted by white nationalist groups. IU wasn't doing anything to curtail their activities. Thus, I laud the athletes for taking the stance that they did and I hope that others step up and do likewise in the future.
Regardless of his right to free speech, I always find it interesting/humorous when someone says something that, while it may be funny to some, is going to obviously trigger anger in many other people.
Have you ever seen Daniel Tosh's comedy?
There’s a slight difference when you’re a professional comedian.
I’m also not aware of Tosh saying racially inflammatory things, especially when the country is right in the middle of its biggest racial equality movement in the last 50 years.
I was watching the 1992 NCAA championship in A bar in NJ. After losing made some comment to a Duke fan about their football team sucking. Turns out he was one of their starting wide receivers. Luckily he was pretty cool about it.
The tweet is horrendous, but a public university expelling or reprimanding a student for poor taste or being offensive seems like a pretty slippery slope.
Meh. Schools have done worse for less.
So if it isnt the worst thing that can happen it isnt a big deal, or you just arent motivated by it?
How long will people continue to pay 10s of thousands of dollars not to be educated but to have your thoughts shaped?
Sounds like you agree with mocking the murder of an innocent man, and believe people who find that offensive should shut up and do what they are told.
You come up with that thought process yourself?
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-05-03
Massive strawman alert. You ever hear of the saying, I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?
When I was at UM in the 80’s progressive students said that exact line all the time. I wish progressives would start saying it again.
I am a university English professor, and while I don't think our higher education system is perfect by any means , I also don't think of myself as some sort of left wing propagandist who polices the thoughts of his students. But your comment has been "liked" or whatever by at least 10 people, so it must in some way speak to others' concerns about universities' perceived liberal agendas. I am familiar with that argument, and let's say it's true, just for the sake of this discussion. I am honestly curious about what you, or others who sympathize with this view, think the alternative should be? What would a better educational model look like? What should a university do to educate students in a less biased way? Where do you see that liberal bias? Is it mainly in humanities classes, or does it happen across the disciplines? Can you provide examples of classes you have taken when you have felt marginalized as a conservative?
Conformity with the professor’s thinking is rewarded. Anyone can tell which way the wind blows for any given professor. For certain profs I moved to the right and others to the left.
Solution is to reduce price of education through competition. Online education will likely be the path forward. Imagine a Netflix for college courses - highly entertaining and learning a lot.
This is being tossed around at Amazon already.
Marvin, my daughter is a rising high school junior and she is going to take AP US history next year, below is the summer reading list from her teacher:
Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, by Bryan Stevenson
Flight, by Sherman Alexie
We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy, by Coates
all three are good books but it is also not difficult to see the agenda too
i am a liberal but i believe that our children deserve an education that is free of politics
My daughter is just 1 year ahead of yours, came to the US in 8th grade. The liberal indoctrination began then and continues to this year, both in the teaching methods and the books that are used in class. She feels limited in expressing even moderate views by both the teachers and other students. She can't understand what rioting, arson, and violence has to do with peaceful protesting and why it is tolerated/even encouraged by the local governments, media/intelligencia. Surveys have shown that up to 90% of college professors identify as liberals. I don't know where Marvin teaches, but it sure isn't at UM.
In regards to the rioting, to understand it you would have to understand that decades of peaceful protests have gone unheard. Leaders of such protests have been arrested, murdered, and condemned by the public. People have been ignored, that their rights have been ignored. At some point those people are going to react violently. A riot is the voice of the unheard. Sometimes you have to flip a few tables to get people to listen.
You don’t have to like the method. You don’t have to agree with the method. But everyone, on both sides, should at least be able to understand why it is happening. People feel oppressed. They want change. And they feel their plight is being ignored.
“Liberal indoctrination,” is often just being taught to view things from another perspective and showing empathy and understanding towards other groups and their experiences. Life isn’t black and white. People view and experience life differently. Students being taught to look at life from the perspective of others shouldn’t be considered “liberal indoctrination.”
Your statement assumes that peaceful protesting is typically ineffective and implies that a violent reaction (rioting) is a natural (possibly condonable) response to an unsuccessful protest.
Yet, history has shown that peaceful protests can work - and are ultimately more successful than violent uprisings since a violent reaction by authorities becomes unjustifiable. Ghandi and MLK Jr. (as just two examples out of many) both used that method successfully - it took time and many setbacks along the way, but it worked.
Have peaceful protests worked though? You mention Ghandi and MLK. Let’s not forget that both of those movements were joined by violent movements as well.
You want to talk about MLK but not talk about the Black Panthers. You want to talk about Ghandi but not the Indian National Army and the movement of other nationalists in India.
Let’s also not ignore that MLK was considered the most dangerous man in America according to the FBI. He was WIDELY scrutinized in his time for his movement. He was wanted dead by numerous government officials, and some consider his assassination to have come FROM the government. Let’s not ignore that Ghandi was assassinated as well.
Let’s not ignore the outrage over Kaepernick’s peaceful protest. How now that violent protests have died down, media coverage has died down. You want people to listen, sometimes you have to flip some tables. Our founding fathers did it during the Boston Tea Party.
Peaceful protests ARE generally ineffective. Any successful protest requires a form of violence. Whether it’s physical destruction or if it’s economic violence. People are still fighting TODAY for the things MLK was marching for. You REALLY want to sit here and call it successful? People want to downplay police brutality and the systemic racism in this country, well it was just put on display for all to see in recent weeks. Something that wouldn’t have happened if not for violent protests.
Again, you don’t have to like it. You don’t have to condone it. But the LEAST you could do is try and see it from someone else’s perspective and ATTEMPT to understand WHY it’s happening. Black people have been fighting for equality for YEARS in this country. How long do you actually expect them to sit there and nicely ask to be treated equally before things get violent? The government has already been using violence against them and these movements for years. How much longer do you expect people to respond peacefully while meaningful change continues to be avoided by the decision makers in this country.
The violent movements that joined Ghandi and MLK Jr did so because their violent methods were not being effective - and they were losing supporters to the non-violent movements anyway. That is why those two men are hailed as such role models - they were able to achieve their results without resulting to violence (despite the calls for it - and despite both losing their lives in the effort): their moral values won in the end (and not due to armed actions).
It is too easy for people to get swept up in emotion (especially anger) and have it lead to more suffering. There are obviously still injustices occurring out there - and we are seeing them being brought to attention and continue to be addressed. It needs to be done in a clear, rational, and legally-driven manner that is driven by facts and detailed planning by all parties. This is how a free, fair, and responsible democracy functions.
The fact that the FBI tailed MLK extensively is proof of the efficacy of peaceful protest, not proof that violent protest is necessary.
You failed Debate, huh?
The fact the FBI under Hoover was suspicious of and spied upon every group and person that voiced any views not in keeping with what he personally felt was proper and best for the U.S. does not in & of itself prove that they or their methods were successful. It simply proves he thought they were subversive.
And knowing what we've since learned about his running of both the Bureau and his personal affairs, it's a damn poor example to use to prove any point! Unless your goal is to give people radical-chic cred! Like John Lennon was very proud of his file, for example. It did prevent him from traveling freely for a period of time, but to him it was validation!
" Your statement assumes that peaceful protesting is typically ineffective and implies that a violent reaction (rioting) is a natural (possibly condonable) response to an unsuccessful protest. "
Peaceful protesting is almost always ineffective.
Effective protest seems to require violence either on the part of the protesters or against the protesters by authorities.
There is a reason MLK intentionally chose cities where he thought the authorities would attack protesters.
There is a definite left wing attempt at indoctrination. Trying to glid it by saying “being taught to views things from another perspective” ignores the fact that humanities is dominated by leftists and that their view is the only one being taught. It is the obverse of what education used to be like decades ago and which was just as bad.
Frankly, humanities should be divested until the toxic ideologies are out of it.
I wouldn't go that route.
It is true that some tenured faculty out there put out some inflammatory views within their classrooms as well in public (the instance of Prof. Walt Churchill at UC-Boulder referring to the victims of the 9/11 attacks at the WTC being "little Eichmanns" who deserved their fate comes to mind, but there are many other similar cases). However, they are given the freedom to express their viewpoint and rightly so (although it should be incumbent upon the universities to balance the information presented to the students to permit a broader understanding and assessment - even for the larger group of faculty that may not have as strong comments but still have bias in their lectures).
Indoctrination is a pretty strong word here. I would hope that by the age of 18, a kid has learned to think for him or herself, and be able to discern what jibes with their world view and what doesn't. I took a science class at Michigan to fulfill a science requirement. It was a survey course of current events examined through the lens of science. Very easy class. But the professor was way left. WAY left. Students got extra credit for volunteering for a dem candidate for city council. I sat and listened and learned and agreed with some things but definitely not everything. I saw it for what it was, I got my credits and good grade and moved on. No indoctrination. If a kid is so malleable and dare I say gullible to be "indoctrinated" by a few liberal professors, I'm thinking maybe they don't belong at an elite institution of higher learning.
You should think a little more critically why humanities and academia are "left wing." Maybe it's all just a big conspiracy of the leftist infiltration (and I imagine you have more anti-Semitic things to say in that regard but are holding back), but Occam's razor would suggest a simpler reason.
No, rioting doesn't help. We vote for our leaders in this country. We get things done through them. If you don't like their success record, vote in new leaders.
Once you condone the violence for one group, you've condoned violence by any other group.
Completely agree.
And to the previous point about "no one is listening to our protests," those protests are often characterized by the Dilbert cartoon.