Two students make a racist video, in blackface. Will they get kicked out?

[Fluffythepoo]

These forums are very tolerant
also.. depriving racists of education is probably a bad way to combat racism

 

[Lola Lazerface]

The sheer fucking stupidity is funny. Watching them thinking they're funny is what does it for me. However, disregarding the meta aspect for a bit, it wasn't funny when the Wayans brothers did it, and factoring in, you know, history it's even less funny now.

 

[NiPah]

snip

It's what you're complaining about. It would merely be enforcing the expectation.

I'm not complaining about the expectation, I'm complaining about your punishment, required counseling would also enforce said expectation and not ruin the girl's lives in doing so.

No, common sense says they should be kicked out.
Common sense is a pretty pathetic argument. You're not very good at reasoning, are you? Common sense might as well translate to "It makes sense in my head but I can't give good reasoning as to why, but it's true because I think it is"

Common sense is a concept that believes there are a set of sensibilities that a majority of individuals have, it was an educated guess that more people would say rehabilitation is better then punishment, again I could be wrong but that would require further study and be outside the use of this debate.

Will it rehabilitate them?

Does it need to?

Depends on what the system of rules and punishment are meant to do, looking at the judicial systems of most civilized countries I'd say rehabilitation is the goal rather then abstract "eye for an eye" punishment.

Make the world a better place?

It will open room for others and show that the university has standards. It will send a message of what is and is not acceptable in society. It sends a message that there are consequences for being racist.

Would said outcome be worth ruining the lives of two girls? I would argue that overall your option makes the world a worse place.
would your option decrease racism? or just cover it up.

No it will just make two very jaded individuals with less education.

And I'm supposed to believe that's the only result because you say so? Common sense dictates you're not exactly the best person to trust for honestly thinking it out and determining what the full results are.

Ah more insults, wonderful.
Just for clarification those are two results of many that would occur in contrast to making the world a better place and the original statement was not meant to say they were the two exclusive results of your given option.

This is a perfect example of what counseling is meant for, and why in this situation most universities will mandate counseling sessions the student must take before they are allowed to graduate. Racism isn't some incurable disease, just a manifestation of twisted world views and ignorance.

I didn't say it was an incurable disease and it doesn't need to be for what I've said. Please, training on strawmen is all well and good if you really want to, but can you do it in your own head next time?

Wow so angry, wasn't even a strawman either, just pointing out how counseling was a real and beneficial option here, had nothing to do with what you said outside of pointing out the merit of another option.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Well for one: they're young. You say stupid shit without thinking when you're young

This justification I've seen too many times but it doesn't always make sense. A child knock over a vase and breaks it, despite repeatedly being warned they might do it - yea, I can see it there. 20ish year olds talking stupid stuff, potentially really offensive - 's OK, I suppose. It's not like I'm not guilty of it. But recording the latter and sharing it with the whole world to see...yeah, I sort of never did that. Nor has anyone I know. I don't think "Gee, they are young" can always be used as an excuse.

Well, early 20s is still young. I know people who done lots of stupid shit in their early 20s who've regretted said decisions in their 30s and onward. It's still a valid argument for not completely ruining their chances at that college.

Besides, they'll have the worst punishment of all: having something embarrassing uploaded on the internet and then garner hundreds of views. They'll get punished now, and later they'll look back with regret.

 

[DoPo]

Well for one: they're young. You say stupid shit without thinking when you're young

This justification I've seen too many times but it doesn't always make sense. A child knock over a vase and breaks it, despite repeatedly being warned they might do it - yea, I can see it there. 20ish year olds talking stupid stuff, potentially really offensive - 's OK, I suppose. It's not like I'm not guilty of it. But recording the latter and sharing it with the whole world to see...yeah, I sort of never did that. Nor has anyone I know. I don't think "Gee, they are young" can always be used as an excuse.

Well, early 20s is still young. I know people who done lots of stupid shit in their early 20s who've regretted said decisions in their 30s and onward. It's still a valid argument for not completely ruining their chances at that college.

And my father has done things he later regretted when he was 40, what's your point? Where do we draw the line? Or is everybody ever excused for anything wrong they do because at a later point in time they would be wiser? If that's the case, then the only actual behaviour we can critique is by Darwin award winners. But then again my grandfather has done other stupid things but that was because he was too old. So what now? Is there like one small age gap where people are expected to not make mistakes? "Happy 50th birthday, dude, you better get a grip now, since you're finally responsible. Until you hit 53." or something.

My point is that there is certain amount of responsibility expected by people - you can do stupid stuff at any age but always saying saying "Oh it's an age thing" stops being relevant. At some point people are expected to know better. And that point is certainly passed for those girls - youth shouldn't be an excuse.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Well for one: they're young. You say stupid shit without thinking when you're young

This justification I've seen too many times but it doesn't always make sense. A child knock over a vase and breaks it, despite repeatedly being warned they might do it - yea, I can see it there. 20ish year olds talking stupid stuff, potentially really offensive - 's OK, I suppose. It's not like I'm not guilty of it. But recording the latter and sharing it with the whole world to see...yeah, I sort of never did that. Nor has anyone I know. I don't think "Gee, they are young" can always be used as an excuse.

Well, early 20s is still young. I know people who done lots of stupid shit in their early 20s who've regretted said decisions in their 30s and onward. It's still a valid argument for not completely ruining their chances at that college.

And my father has done things he later regretted when he was 40, what's your point? Where do we draw the line? Or is everybody ever excused for anything wrong they do because at a later point in time they would be wiser? If that's the case, then the only actual behaviour we can critique is by Darwin award winners. But then again my grandfather has done other stupid things but that was because he was too old. So what now? Is there like one small age gap where people are expected to not make mistakes? "Happy 50th birthday, dude, you better get a grip now, since you're finally responsible. Until you hit 53." or something.

My point is that there is certain amount of responsibility expected by people - you can do stupid stuff at any age but always saying saying "Oh it's an age thing" stops being relevant. At some point people are expected to know better. And that point is certainly passed for those girls - youth shouldn't be an excuse.

Yeah, I guess your kinda right on that point.
Still, it's not like they wouldn't be punished for this. I'm sure the school will take disciplinary action and the girls will still have the shame (perhaps) of having done this.

 

[Kinguendo]

snip

Its quite clear your views are flawed, this is evidenced in your reply as you ignore quite a few of my points which were numbered for easy referencing to your comments and so that you could do the same. Its not difficult to notice how you conventiently ignored the quite large generalisations you made that I brought attention to, showing you are unwilling to address the flaws in your views. This shows you really arent in any position to lecture anyone regarding anything about "race" or ethnicity... or even nationality given the mistakes you made earlier.

Also, you kept on bringing up context earlier but now you bring up "black face =/= black people" in a general sense when we are discussing specific cases. Was the chap dressed as the Grim Reaper and applied black make-up to his face to complete the costume? No, he wore normal clothes and put black make-up on his face... What else would that be?

And no, rehabilitation isnt punishment... its why the terms come seperately when discussing prison as a place for rehabilitation and punishment, NOT rehabilitation as punishment. Also why rehabilitation is defined as a method to restore to useful life, through therapy and education and why rehabilitation and punishment are not sysnonymous.

And to finish, Halloween is about the promotion of horror... stop trying to deny this. I dont understand why you are trying so hard to defend racism OR idiots who dont have the foresight or common sense to realize the implications of what they are doing.

EDIT: Just found a video of it that hasnt been deleted... couldnt watch for more than 10 seconds and in that time they already dropped a "******" with a hard "er". Given this complete lack of reluctance to say that word I doubt their apology was sincere, they were sad that they got caught. Have you seen the video? And if so, you are really okay with that?

 

[NiPah]

You do realize expulsion and execution are two different actions, yes? One would most certainly ruin someone's life, the other would cause inconvenience. Large, but hardly insurmountable.

Ruin usually implies irretrievable harm but not necessarily total destruction

Don't be overly pedantic, you understood the implied meaning.

So you're redefining 'common sense' to 'appeal to majority'. Great. Still not a good argument.

I broke down the phrase for you since you seemed to be having difficulty understanding why it would be beneficial for use in an argument, I see you still can't comprehend it's significance, or for that matter it's definition.

So apparently you don't get the idea of removing toxic elements from the rest of society, nor of discouraging people from certain behaviors by letting it be know there will be consequences. Or you're just playing dumb and pretending I said it was about an eye for an eye.

Your use of the phrase "get the idea" is incorrectly used, I understand your reasoning completely, what you meant to say is "agree with" which I do not. I also did not pretend you said "eye for an eye", you just fail to comprehend how closely your style of punishment mimics said style.

Their lives aren't ruined. And it's inconveniencing people who chose to act in a racist fashion.
Also, saying "I would argue" is a pretty bad argument on its own. It means "I disagree and don't want to justify my view"

My use of the term was not incorrect, modern diction allows for the use of ruin to reflect irretrievable harm which your punishment would bring to the girls.
My use of the phrase "I would argue" stems from my inability to see into the future, the justification I use was to point out the ways your punishment made the world a worse place. For clarity I will add "My solution will result in educated individuals who have successfully completed counseling to rehabilitate them to society" as further justification.

It's not an insult to point out you're going to be biased. And it was presented as the one result. It's nice to see you backtrack, but it'd be show better character if you'd just admitted you were wrong.

My original statement was correct, you failed to understand it out of the context of the original post so I made it easier to understand. Your use of the term biased was incorrect attributed to this quote, you simply failed to comprehend the meaning behind my argument and for sake of the ongoing debate I made it easier to understand, modern diction made be hard to understand at some points so it's understandable when you have trouble.

Racism isn't something you should support, you know.

Which is why your solution is incorrect, but given that you understand this point it should not be difficult to reevaluate your solution so it does not support racism.
But it is good that we both agree on this point.

 

[Kinguendo]

I know I said I'd leave well alone, but when you're flat-out getting things wrong I feel I need to set a few things straight.

Black face =/= black person, just like going out as a Geisha does not imply all Japanese women are whores. But we appear to have stumbled upon another of your gems of ignorance: Halloween has nothing to do with being scary; hasn't for a long time.

It serves two purposes: for kids to dress up as superheroes and get free sweets and for adults to dress up as anything and get absolutely hammered.

Oh, and you try keeping your make-up perfect after two bottles of red wine and vodka shots. This is why I started going out as Heath Ledger's Joker, (I bet you find that offensive too because he's dead.)

When I am flat-out getting "things" wrong? Things implying more than one yet you only highlight 1 sentence from my entire reply? I wrote quite a large comment, its somewhat annoying for you to just ignore it.

Generally speaking, no it does not. However, we arent speaking generally are we? We are talking of your actions and those of the two girls in the video.

Halloween is still about horror, either you are being naive or just lying to me. What decorations are sold for Halloween? What television is shown at that time of year? What genre of movies are released in relatively large quantities at that time of year? Why is it possible to do that if that time of year is not associated with what they are trying to sell you?

I think I will finish on delicious irony, you make an ignorant statement about the Geisha tradition... and then call me ignorant. I love irony, it just... tells you so much about a person. You could have checked that quite easily, you didnt... Dont know why but it is a display of arrogance to be so sure of something that you do not check even though you are wrong about it. Geishas are hostesses and entertainers, not "whores". That blatant display of ignorance did actually cause some offence and kind of proves your opinions on such issues are to be taken with a grain of salt, however I wont simply dismiss everything you say because of it but it does damage your credibility.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

snip

Its Halloween... so its supposed to be scary. Now he may not have seen it like that, but that is the direct implication of his costume that he chose to wear on that day.

Reaching for arguments still eh?

Not all costumes on Halloween are meant to be scary. What about little kids in duck and fairy costumes? Neither of those are scary. Or adults dressing as strippers. Those aren't scary either. Or the Heineken beer bottle costumes. Or giant Crayons. Halloween has long been disconnected from the pagan roots from which it was derived. Drop it. Please.

OT:
My whole opinion on this video can be summed up thusly:

 

[rob_simple]

I know I said I'd leave well alone, but when you're flat-out getting things wrong I feel I need to set a few things straight.

Black face =/= black person, just like going out as a Geisha does not imply all Japanese women are whores. But we appear to have stumbled upon another of your gems of ignorance: Halloween has nothing to do with being scary; hasn't for a long time.

It serves two purposes: for kids to dress up as superheroes and get free sweets and for adults to dress up as anything and get absolutely hammered.

Oh, and you try keeping your make-up perfect after two bottles of red wine and vodka shots. This is why I started going out as Heath Ledger's Joker, (I bet you find that offensive too because he's dead.)

When I am flat-out getting "things" wrong? Things implying more than one yet you only highlight 1 sentence from my entire reply? I wrote quite a large comment, its somewhat annoying for you to just ignore it.

Generally speaking, no it does not. However, we arent speaking generally are we? We are talking of your actions and those of the two girls in the video.

Halloween is still about horror, either you are being naive or just lying to me. What decorations are sold for Halloween? What television is shown at that time of year? What genre of movies are released in relatively large quantities at that time of year? Why is it possible to do that if that time of year is not associated with what they are trying to sell you?

I think I will finish on delicious irony, you make an ignorant statement about the Geisha tradition... and then call me ignorant. I love irony, it just... tells you so much about a person. You could have checked that quite easily, you didnt... Dont know why but it is a display of arrogance to be so sure of something that you do not check even though you are wrong about it. Geishas are hostesses and entertainers, not "whores". That blatant display of ignorance did actually cause some offence and kind of proves your opinions on such issues are to be taken with a grain of salt, however I wont simply dismiss everything you say because of it but it does damage your credibility.

You really, really need to stop highlighting peoples grammatical errors to try and bolster your argument.

There is an element of horror to Halloween, but just like Christianity has very little to do with Christmas for the majority of people, so too has the horror element been largely removed from Halloween. People still sell decorations and put horror films on sale, but only because it's traditional; for the majority of people Halloween is just about going out and having a good time. I would refer you to other peoples points on the subject, though: What exactly is scary about kids dressing up as Spiderman, or adults dressing up as, well, Spiderman?

It was a crude generalisation on my part --and I did make an assumption, based on Japanese media that I've read/watched-- which was wrong, and I apologise for that (although I am now confused as to why people would take offense at white people dressing up as Geishas for Halloween). But what we are talking about here is the difference between a false assumption by me and every single one of your arguments being based on a flawed premises which, when brought to light by several members of this board, you choose to ignore; instead attacking us on the front of semantics and general pedantry.

I can admit when I'm wrong, but you delude yourself with this illusion that you can't possibly be mistaken, even going so far as to tell a black guy, when he calls you out on your bullshit, that he is wrong to not be offended by blackface. I assume this arrogance comes from you being surrounded by people who, a long time ago, figured it was easier to just tell you you're right than try shouting at a brick wall; leading you to assume you've got the whole world figured out and everyone else is the fool for not understanding your brilliance.

 

[rob_simple]

Also, you kept on bringing up context earlier but now you bring up "black face =/= black people" in a general sense when we are discussing specific cases. Was the chap dressed as the Grim Reaper and applied black make-up to his face to complete the costume? No, he wore normal clothes and put black make-up on his face... What else would that be?

Oh, swing and a miss.

I wasn't wearing normal clothes, as I stated in a previous post, I was copying the likes of Al Jolson and The Black and White Minstrel Show. When people asked me what I was dressed as, I said a Minstrel, not a black guy. This is why blackface =/= black person.

Congratulations on calling me out about my ignorance regarding Geishas when you have done the exact same thing here.

 

[invadergir]

Why do some posters here think they get to decide what is offensive to people. Just because you say it didn't offend you, due to your life-experience and cultural background, doesn't mean you should be so submissive about other peoples feelings.

It shows a shocking amount of self-centeredness and lack of empathy.

 

[Kinguendo]

You really, really need to stop highlighting peoples grammatical errors to try and bolster your argument.

There is an element of horror to Halloween, but just like Christianity has very little to do with Christmas for the majority of people, so too has the horror element been largely removed from Halloween. People still sell decorations and put horror films on sale, but only because it's traditional; for the majority of people Halloween is just about going out and having a good time. I would refer you to other peoples points on the subject, though: What exactly is scary about kids dressing up as Spiderman, or adults dressing up as, well, Spiderman?

It was a crude generalisation on my part --and I did make an assumption, based on Japanese media that I've read/watched-- which was wrong, and I apologise for that (although I am now confused as to why people would take offense at white people dressing up as Geishas for Halloween). But what we are talking about here is the difference between a false assumption by me and every single one of your arguments being based on a flawed premises which, when brought to light by several members of this board, you choose to ignore; instead attacking us on the front of semantics and general pedantry.

I can admit when I'm wrong, but you delude yourself with this illusion that you can't possibly be mistaken, even going so far as to tell a black guy, when he calls you out on your bullshit, that he is wrong to not be offended by blackface. I assume this arrogance comes from you being surrounded by people who, a long time ago, figured it was easier to just tell you you're right than try shouting at a brick wall; leading you to assume you've got the whole world figured out and everyone else is the fool for not understanding your brilliance.

No actually, I dont. It was a small paragraph that was ultimately about you ignoring the vast majority of my comment, you focused on entirely the wrong thing for the same reason you ignored the vast majority of my comment... you couldnt fight it.

Sheer naivety, Halloween is mostly about horror. Stop pretending it isnt.

"every single one of your arguments being based on a flawed premises" And after this is where you would say what that flawed premise was... but you didnt.

No, you had to admit you were wrong because of the points I made. No one here has put such an argument to me, its been either repetition or pointless insults between 9 different repliers thus far. Also, decided to stick with assumptions after having to apologize for making assumptions in the previous paragraph. I can tell you learned your lesson(!)

And what was that you were saying about me attacking you? Hypocritical of you to say that and then end with that comment, no?

EDIT: Also, what? When do I say or even imply that this supposed black person is wrong to not be offended? When? I said that being black gives you no authority on this issue and I would appreciate him stopping his use of "As a black person", and that he could be as ignorant as anyone else regarding this topic. But not once did I say anything close to "You are wrong to not be offended by this as a black person".

 

[Kinguendo]

Also, you kept on bringing up context earlier but now you bring up "black face =/= black people" in a general sense when we are discussing specific cases. Was the chap dressed as the Grim Reaper and applied black make-up to his face to complete the costume? No, he wore normal clothes and put black make-up on his face... What else would that be?

Oh, swing and a miss.

I wasn't wearing normal clothes, as I stated in a previous post, I was copying the likes of Al Jolson and The Black and White Minstrel Show. When people asked me what I was dressed as, I said a Minstrel, not a black guy. This is why blackface =/= black person.

Congratulations on calling me out about my ignorance regarding Geishas when you have done the exact same thing here.

Oh you mean that comment you left for Chadachada123? I cant help but notice how different his name is to mine, its almost as if that isnt me...

And didnt the Black and White Minstrel Show get cancelled for... racism? Oh thats right, yes it did. Didnt they try to re-release the show as the same but without the black make-up? Didnt it fail miserably? Why yes, yes it did. I wonder what was the only thing missing that turned a popular show in the 50s-70s into a catastrophic failure? Oh thats right, the black make-up on their faces whilst they portrayed sterotypes. You had a stronger argument (not strong, just stronger than your new and much weaker stance) before bringing this up, the truth helped you in no way and I am beginning to see why you didnt mention it to me up until now and the only reason you mentioned it now is that you thought I knew that picture of you in a shirt and black make-up was a specific reference without ever actually telling me that it was.

Like water off a duck.

Oh and just to finish, do you even know where the term Minstrel regarding blackface came from? It was originally called "****** Minstrel".

 

[rob_simple]

Snips. Snips everywhere.

You know what? Forget it. I don't know what I ever thought I would achieve by taking you on here, (I guess I just don't respond well to threats of physical violence,) but I am tired of reading your long-winded sanctimonious replies to myself and others. So think what you want of me, I'll continue to do whatever I like and make people laugh while I do it.

Oh, and just a heads up, but I'm sure if you examined the cultural origins of many classic Halloween costumes --nice sidestep on not answering what's scary about Spiderman, by the way-- you'd find several that have roots in prejudicial or stereotypical folklore. Just because it was longer ago and everyone's forgotten about it doesn't change that, though I doubt you'd let that get in the way of thinking you're right.

And for the record, don't take this as me admitting you are right. I still think you are an intolerably arrogant/ignorant person with far too much time on your hands, but I imagine I'm in the majority on that.

Take care, and if you ever do see me, I welcome you to swing a punch.

 

[NiPah]

snip

No still going to go with "you're wrong" and quote my above text, not much I can add to since you're just nit picking at this point.
But by all means I'll give this victory to you, congrats on a hard won debate, you seem to really want to make yourself look the better man here.