I fail to see how anything I said is hypocritical. You're taking my personal opinion, which is that anyone defending these statements is equally as bad, and trying to use it against me without looking at my other points. You're seriously grasping at straws man.

11/20/2008 1:09:09 PM

Quote :

"but the university is protecting them by maintaining their anonymity"

I'm kind of surprised other students haven't leaked it yet. I would think the Technician could do some investigative journalism and figure it out.

11/20/2008 1:09:38 PM

Quote :

"but the university is protecting them by maintaining their anonymity"

Yeah, and?

Does the university not protect the anonymity of everyone that breaks the code of conduct?
(If in fact they don't... then I agree with you, that's complete bullshit. They need to be protecting anonymity of everyone, not just high-profile racists.)

Quote :

"Do you know what other actions are being taken? I haven't seen any articles about this anywhere..."

No idea, because frankly I don't give two shits about the issue unless some fucktard takes it upon himself to declare that the first amendment should only apply to certain types of speech.

I would expect/hope that if the university is enrolling them in diversity training that it wouldn't be the only thing being done. Then again such faith in the NCSU administration might be misplaced.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 1:11:10 PM

hell no they don't

11/20/2008 1:12:40 PM

I think the University acted responsibly other than listening to the NAACP.

You can call painting over it censoring them, I think they decided to paint over messages which fall outside of the guidelines posted outside the tunnel.

Punishing them for it would be censoring them. Painting over the message shows the unviersity doesn't agree with it. Asking them write an apology and those involved feeling ashamed for it (at least not wanting to be associated with it at this point) I believe will yield better results. Encouraging them to go to diversity training may help too. Here you've identified a small pocket of people, (not a representative sample of NCSU, and I pity the fool who thinks it is) made them see some or all of the error of their ways, and hopefully made a positive impact.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : Troll away, victims, you'll make your mountain of this molehill yet!]

11/20/2008 1:13:56 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see how anything I said is hypocritical. You're taking my personal opinion, which is that anyone defending these statements is equally as bad, and trying to use it against me without looking at my other points. You're seriously grasping at straws man."

I don't believe the word "hypocritical" is the one I would use. Simply "wildly inconsistent." As in, you keep giving us contradictory statements, such as:

-The actions expressed by the message are unacceptable, but they have the right to expression
-They have no right to express the message they did, and should be punished
-But censorship is totally uncool
-But we should censor hateful messages like this one
-Defending the perps' rights to free expression is as reprehensible as the perps' message itself
-The perps' message was unacceptable, but defending free speech isn't.

WHICH IS IT?

11/20/2008 1:14:27 PM

Quote :

"Punishing them for it would be censoring them. "

no that would be censuring them
which they haven't done adequately

the painting was censoring them

11/20/2008 1:18:12 PM

Whatever cupcake. People obviously read what he put, so they didn't completely censor him.

No one stood there and told him he couldn't, and he's not being throw to the wolves like you people want.

Semantics is all you have left kid?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : Punishing them for it would have set precedent of complete censorship.]

11/20/2008 1:19:47 PM

^ snewf is right

but painting over it sets the precedent for punishing them for it.

And things have been painted over in the past anyway.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 1:20:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOkDOXAovQ

Where were all of you people when Kamau Kambon was spouting his trash about white people should be exterminated? See here's the difference: terpball isn't wanting to change the pamphlet for new students coming in then but now look the fuck out because some said something he doesn't like and its the end of the damn world.

Again, I don't agree with what he said but he has the right to say it.

11/20/2008 1:22:17 PM

^ are you alleging that no one spoke out against that guy?

Because you're just plain wrong (like you are on this issue too).

11/20/2008 1:23:23 PM

.....wow
kid can't even get his own argument straight.




uhhh, that prof. faced a HUGE backlash from whites, blacks, everyone. lost almost all credibility in the academic realm, and I believe lost his job....

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 1:24:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe the word "hypocritical" is the one I would use. Simply "wildly inconsistent." As in, you keep giving us contradictory statements, such as:"

Apart from the fact that you apparently have no idea what the fuck hypocritical means...

Quote :

"-The actions expressed by the message are unacceptable, but they have the right to expression -They have no right to express the message they did, and should be punished"

Correct. In this case, based on the location of the event, who is in charge of the location, and what was written, they have no right to write what they did. It was unacceptable and their form of expression is not covered by any law. I don't think they committed a crime, but they are subject to any punishment the university deems fit. This is a position I have been consistent on throughout the entire thread.

Quote :

"-But censorship is totally uncool -But we should censor hateful messages like this one"

Censorship is uncool. The university should censor this stuff.

Quote :

"-Defending the perps' rights to free expression is as reprehensible as the perps' message itself -The perps' message was unacceptable, but defending free speech isn't."

In this particular instance, the message was wrong. The punishment is just and there is no ground for anyone defending this position to stand on. If you are defending what these kids did, you are just as bad in my book because you're no longer defending their right to say something (because they technically have no right to say something like this in the context that they said it) so you must be defending the content of their message.

11/20/2008 1:25:36 PM

Quote :

"Where were all of you people when Kamau Kambon was spouting his trash about white people should be exterminated? "

half the people were laughing at him (me being one), the other half were speaking out against him. nobody was defending him from what I remember. Like how you, prufrock, etc... are defending the racists who painted the tunnel.

11/20/2008 1:26:59 PM

Quote :

"Censorship is uncool. The university should censor this stuff."

So... this means the university is uncool?

Actually I can agree with that implied bit.

11/20/2008 1:28:01 PM

^ ^I wouldn't lump profrock or 'boner in with LaserSoup.

I think prufrock and boner genuinely (but wrongly) see this as a free speech issue, where as LaserSoup and wdprice3 are just idiots.


[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 1:28:47 PM

semantics is indeed "all I have left"
in fact it is all I've got

it is all any of us have
especially when talking about the law which is simply a corpus of language reified through physical action

11/20/2008 1:30:01 PM

STOP USING WORDS

11/20/2008 1:31:45 PM

Quote :

"nobody was defending him from what I remember. Like how you, prufrock, etc... are defending the racists who painted the tunnel."

No one was defending his rights to free speech? I'll do it right now: That idiot has the right to say or write whatever the fuck he wants. Just like these idiots have the right as US citizens to say or write whatever the fuck they want.

...The only difference is that the second set of idiots are enrolled in an institution with a code of conduct, which is why it's perfectly okay that the university take disciplinary action against them, and to censor what they say when it's written on university property.

11/20/2008 1:32:37 PM

^ he can say what he wants, but he doesn't have the right for the university to maintain his employment after saying those particular statements.

11/20/2008 1:34:40 PM

STOP USING THE MEANINGS OF WORDS TO MEAN STUFF

11/20/2008 1:34:50 PM

Quote :

"STOP USING WORDS"

LOL

11/20/2008 1:35:21 PM

Quote :

"Apart from the fact that you apparently have no idea what the fuck hypocritical means..."

*yawn*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Quote :

"hypocrite One entry found. Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Listen to the pronunciation of hypocrite Pronunciation: \'hi-p?-?krit\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokrites actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai Date: 13th century 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistent

Quote :

"Main Entry: in·con·sis·tent Listen to the pronunciation of inconsistent Pronunciation: \-t?nt\ Function: adjective Date: 1620 : lacking consistency: as a: not compatible with another fact or claim <inconsistent statements> b: containing incompatible elements <an inconsistent argument> c: incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : changeable d: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns <inconsistent equations> <inconsistent inequalities> "

Yes, do continue to lecture me on what I do and do not know. It's so entertaining.

Idiot.

Quote :

"Correct. In this case, based on the location of the event, who is in charge of the location, and what was written, they have no right to write what they did. It was unacceptable and their form of expression is not covered by any law. I don't think they committed a crime, but they are subject to any punishment the university deems fit. This is a position I have been consistent on throughout the entire thread."

They do or do not have the right to free expression in the free expression tunnel. Your position is that they do not. Ergo, things are greatly simplified if you stop making pretenses otherwise.

Quote :

"Censorship is uncool. The university should censor this stuff."

So, we go back to my original question, which is - who gets to be the arbiter of "acceptable" ideas? Because pretty much while you're going to whine about censorship, you're okay with it, as long as they're censoring the right things.

Quote :

"In this particular instance, the message was wrong. The punishment is just and there is no ground for anyone defending this position to stand on. If you are defending what these kids did, you are just as bad in my book because you're no longer defending their right to say something (because they technically have no right to say something like this in the context that they said it) so you must be defending the content of their message."

What kind of idiotic convolution is this?

"you're no longer defending their right to say something (because they technically have no right to say something like this in the context that they said it) so you must be defending the content of their message."

Are you serious?

First off, the question of their right to express something is at the core of this debate, and what you are doing is essentially taking that matter is as given beforehand. But then you go further in claiming that even assuming that matter is settled, defending the idea of free speech, since this message is obviously already verboten, must mean that really it's just a cover for defending racism.

Are you fucking serious, here?

11/20/2008 1:37:51 PM

Yawn

Quote :

"I don't believe the word "hypocritical" is the one I would use. Simply "wildly inconsistent." As in, you keep giving us contradictory statements, such"

Didn't read the rest of your post based on your obvious lack of intelligence.

11/20/2008 1:40:08 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistent

Quote :

"Main Entry: in·con·sis·tent Listen to the pronunciation of inconsistent Pronunciation: \-t?nt\ Function: adjective Date: 1620 : lacking consistency: as a: not compatible with another fact or claim <inconsistent statements> b: containing incompatible elements <an inconsistent argument> c: incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : changeable d: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns <inconsistent equations> <inconsistent inequalities> "

That's okay - you don't need to embarrass yourself further in this debate.

11/20/2008 1:42:26 PM

Quote :

"I think prufrock and boner genuinely (but wrongly) see this as a free speech issue"

As far as I know, I was just arguing against the people who were implying or blatantly stating that the First Amendment should not protect certain types of speech. Not against the people who think that the university administration isn't handling this properly.


I agree with the university punishing them and censoring what is written on the FET. That's fine, they are enrolled students and as such have to obey the student code of conduct, and the FET is not only university property but also not *actually* an area for people to write whatever they want (it's posted outside the tunnel to refrain from hate speech).

I might not think they deserve to be punished to the extent that some people in this thread are calling for (expulsion), but I do completely agree with punishing them. IMO, "diversity training" alone is not nearly an adequate punishment, but expulsion is too much. They should be punished somewhere in the middle... temporary suspension, or something, maybe... don't really know what the university normally uses as a "next closest thing to expulsion" sort of punishment.

Also, again, I really don't give two shits about the issue unless some fucknuts use it as an excuse to start claiming that the first amendment shouldn't/doesn't protect racism and idiocy.

Quote :

"he can say what he wants, but he doesn't have the right for the university to maintain his employment after saying those particular statements."

Oh, he's employed by a university? Yeah, they should have fired him (or not hired him to begin with). Honestly I've got no idea who that guy is or why he is relevant in any way, besides being some racist whose rights to free speech are protected.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 1:43:59 PM

Moron- I'm just saying that it's BS that rappers spew this hate speech in their lyrics over and over and the NAACP doesn't make a peep, but they are desperate to crucify these dumb kids. It's a double standard. If one group has a right to say it, so does everyone else.

11/20/2008 1:44:57 PM

Quote :

"LaserSoup and wdprice3 are just idiots"

Sweet.

11/20/2008 1:46:00 PM

^^ What hate speech in particularly are you referring to? I don't think the NAACP supporters rappers using any kind of hate.

The NAACP has retired the word "nigger" (if that's what you're referring to), and this issue is NOT about the word "nigger" anyway. The fact that you still believe that after all these threads show that you have a chip on your shoulder of some sort.

11/20/2008 1:50:40 PM

Quote :

"LaserSoup and wdprice3 are just idiots"

typical response. you have nothing better to say, no logical point, and cannot argue your way out of the hypocritical, double standard whole in which you are standing.

11/20/2008 2:42:08 PM

^^I'm pretty sure CeilingCat is referring to some rap lyrics that involve killing, shooting, raping, or otherwise injuring other human beings, and this is somehow perfectly fine. Not the "nigger" word.

I don't hear rock songs talk about killing cops or shooting people in the throat.

http://www.tightrope.cc/sampler/racistrap.shtml
Yea, it's a "white power" web site. Ignore that part and just look at the lyrics listed. You can't take them out of context b/c you can go look up the lyrics. And don't start with the "but it's on a racist web site" BS. It's just a listing of some lyrics... /rant.

11/20/2008 3:08:00 PM

^ you clearly don't listen to punk rock

and dude, your racism is showing!

11/20/2008 3:30:36 PM

No, I guess I don't listen to punk. I'm fine with that being discussed, as well, in the same vein as some rap/hip-hop music.

More like Google's racism is showing, since that's one of the first sites that popped up when I searched "rap lyrics white violence". Meh. And stop calling me dude.

11/20/2008 3:45:08 PM

TREASON!

11/20/2008 3:48:32 PM

Threaten the presidents life = lecture/slap on wrist

Post jokes to police blotter = FELONY CHARGES

11/20/2008 4:02:40 PM

that's what the fuck I'm saying

god damn you, NC State

11/20/2008 4:29:11 PM

and how about that guy talking about nc state like they love their students so much too.

there's no way someone didn't get a lawyer to block this shit.

nc state HATES you. never forget that, people

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason : *horsenoise*]

11/20/2008 4:35:07 PM

Quote :

"Threaten the presidents life = lecture/slap on wrist Post jokes to police blotter = FELONY CHARGES"

I wonder what would have happened had they wrote "kill those nigger NCSU police" on a wall?

11/20/2008 5:31:18 PM

honestly, probly nothing. some butthurt faggot saw that obama was in IMMEDIATE DANGER and after a few dozen poorly videotaped fainting spells, slid a pic of it under the door of one of the profs state has that also work for the N&O. Process was repeated, but this time replace "slide under door" with "publish" and "notify"

11/20/2008 5:35:52 PM

this thread has fallen as silent as the university on issues of justice and equality
/bait

11/20/2008 9:07:30 PM