Imagine how much America would save by shipping out the folks who don't support Old Dixie.

If they don't like the song then attend a different school you moochers.

11/23/2009 7:49:46 PM

If we got rid of the states that mooched the most money from the federal gov., the republicans would lose a nice, good chunk of their base.

11/23/2009 9:53:38 PM

Yes but the people collecting the proceeds aren't republicans

11/24/2009 8:22:28 AM

^^ Interesting graph. I wonder why NM gets the most tax dollars....

I expected AK due to its situation and WV b.c of the douchebag pork spending senator of theirs.

11/24/2009 9:38:41 AM

i'm happy to say that my view on this issue is opposite that of the KKK

11/24/2009 10:02:26 AM

This is a bit like that South Park episode...hopefully nobody already said that

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/24/2009 10:17:07 AM

Quote :

"If they don't like the song then attend a different school you moochers."

it is the school is who promoting removing the song from the playlist. based on this the situation is more reasonably if you want to sing the song then go somewhere else where you can.

11/24/2009 10:30:56 AM

Quote :

"it is the school is who promoting removing the song from the playlist. based on this the situation is more reasonably if you want to sing the song then go somewhere else where you can. "

it started as a student initiative, and gained traction with administration, faculty, alumni, doners etc

democracy in action people!

11/24/2009 10:45:55 AM

Quote :

"it is the school is who promoting removing the song from the playlist. based on this the situation is more reasonably if you want to sing the song then go somewhere else where you can."

If that would be a reason for you to go to another college, you might want to rethink that whole college thing altogether.

11/24/2009 11:02:15 AM

What's the point of college if you can't keep your ignorant and bigoted views fully intact?

11/24/2009 11:09:46 AM

No, let's just eliminate everything that makes us uncomfortable.

11/24/2009 11:33:38 AM

So you're arguing that they should have kept the chant, and that their (voluntary) choice to remove it was a bad decision?

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 11:49:46 AM

Not at all. If the band (or the organization that controls the band) voluntarily changes it, great.

I just don't think that it's right to declare a subset of world views unacceptable for students to encounter. The point of college is to meet people with all sorts of different world views so you can grow as a person. Or at least that should be the point.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2009 11:56:22 AM

the students decided to make the change.

not sure what you're arguing.

11/24/2009 12:56:32 PM

^ i think he's saying we should encourage people to be racists, so that other people can be exposed to their world views.

11/24/2009 1:49:14 PM

They must have taken a lesson from NCSU on tradition killing.

11/24/2009 2:06:25 PM

I think saying "ole miss will rise again" is a better, stronger tradition.

11/24/2009 2:07:57 PM

The song in question wasn't even played until the mid-80's anyway... it's not like it's a fight song from back in the day.

11/24/2009 2:48:53 PM

There's nothing wrong with the song. No lyics are even sung during the game. It's played by a brass band.

It's the accompaning chant "The South shall rise again" that harms the sensitivites of people who've never even been to a game.

11/24/2009 3:12:11 PM

Quote :

"that harms the sensitivites of people who've never even been to a game."

Quote :

"the students decided to make the change. not sure what you're arguing."

11/24/2009 5:36:14 PM

Quote :

"HUR:^^ Interesting graph. I wonder why NM gets the most tax dollars.... I expected AK due to its situation and WV b.c of the douchebag pork spending senator of theirs."

Fancy government labs and projects and whatnot.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/24/which-states-get-the-most-federal-money/

11/25/2009 6:44:29 AM

rabble rabble rabble

people just need to quit being offended by shit, and it wouldn't be offensive

11/25/2009 7:54:52 AM

Synapse, I am not perturbed by the method of the students, only their motivation. Why spend so much energy to stifle the other students that shout that phrase during a game?

How about instead of silencing other people you ignore them or *gasp* learn from them?

I wonder how many people get offended when idiots shout "RED" during the National Anthem (if they still do that, it's been a long time since I've attended a game).....

11/25/2009 8:43:03 AM

Quote :

""the students decided to make the change. not sure what you're arguing.""

Actually it's the faculty and student government. The students are the ones chanting.

11/25/2009 8:45:02 AM

What if instead of "the south will rise again" it was "blacks should be slaves again." Would that just be exposing others to different worldviews? Would that just be making others feel "uncomfortable"? Would it be completely appropriate to use in a public university fight song, and would it be wrong to ask those chanting this during a football game to stop?

11/25/2009 9:06:32 AM

^ Considering that the lyrics in the song aren't even what they're chanting, I'm not sure what point you're making. OH NOES, LET'S ENCOURAGE THEM TO SING THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE SONG!

11/25/2009 9:31:19 AM

^^It probably wouldn't do much to motivate the mostly black football team to play better.

In the context of a crowd rallying their southern team to come back from a losing score, there's nothing offensive about "The South shall rise again". It's a fucking sports game.

Look at the Ole Miss team roster. Do you still think there's a racist implication here when most of the team is black w/ dreds? This is a case of inferred meaning trumping contextually-relevant meaning.

11/25/2009 9:50:06 AM

I hate having to operate in this fake reality where we pretend like this shit isn't obviously racist, like we can, in disco_stu's words, "learn from" this gang of drunken, white twenty year-olds and their "different world views." I figured I could find some actual U Miss students sharing their thoughts, and what do you know...

Article:
http://olemisslife.com/content/students-suspended-fraternity-after-appearing-offensive-video?page=1

Link to the actual video:
http://kaleidoscopelyfe.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/ole-miss-students-suspended-after-racist-youtube-tantrum/

The argument that it isn't blatantly racist is bullshit. The argument that we should tolerate it by ignoring it or learning from it is bullshit.

The right to freedom of speech argument is fine. But the other students, staff, and faculty also have a right to protest and get the song pulled. The staunch bigots should feel free to add their special chant to another song if they wish, or they could just go all the way like the frat boy featured in the video...Say it loud and proud, "FUCK THOSE NIGGERS!"

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 10:23:48 AM

You're right. Anything racist must be suppressed in the name of preserving our sensibilities.

11/25/2009 11:06:20 AM

^ Where do you stop, then? At what point does it become wrong to say something? How about when hate speech incites someone to violence? The issue isn't the free speech. The issue is one of morals and misplaced pride.

Here's something to consider: what if it were anti-abortion lyrics? You know, several doctors that have performed abortions have been killed in this country, recently even, and their killers have frequently cited anti-abortion rhetoric and documents to support their decisions to kill. Should that strong anti-abortion rhetoric be allowed to continue, knowing that some unbalanced people will then use it as a springboard to commit murder? And don't trot out pro-life talking points in support of that question, that's not what I'm talking about here.

11/25/2009 11:29:45 AM

^^^ the guy in that video looks and acts like 90% of the frat guys i know that go to State

11/25/2009 11:50:07 AM

^^While I have no problem with the school deciding to stop playing the song I dont think banning speech because some whackos cite it as inspiration for criminal acts should be allowed either.

The fact that someone said something should not be allowed to count as a serious contributing factor in another person's actions (with some exceptions eg military orders etc). If you want to ban certain words or phrases because some people cite them as inspiration for criminal acts it just sets the precedent that others could claim what most people think of as reasonable words as inspiration and then those phrases get banned as well.

11/25/2009 12:03:32 PM

^^^^I never said that.

^^Yup!

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 12:03:34 PM

Oh, and here's the video embedded for those of you who want to hear the N-word without having to click a link:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAUrWmlq3ns

Article:
http://olemisslife.com/content/students-suspended-fraternity-after-appearing-offensive-video?page=1

11/25/2009 12:11:54 PM

Quote :

"^ Where do you stop, then? At what point does it become wrong to say something? How about when hate speech incites someone to violence? The issue isn't the free speech. The issue is one of morals and misplaced pride."

It becomes wrong to say something when you are specifically threatening physical harm on someone. That's the line. Anything before that is simply offensive. The appropriate response to offensive speech is ignoring it, not getting your panties in a twist and complaining to donors to the university.

I believe in personal responsibility. Even if Bill O'Reilly had said "I want someone to shoot Dr. George Tiller tomorrow" I would not hold him accountable for that murder. The person pulling the trigger is responsible for his actions. Like ^^^ said there are probably some good exceptions to this like military orders.

Quote :

"^^^^I never said that."

But that's the gist of the entire argument isn't it? It's racist so it must be purged. It's not just offensive speech, it's racist! Are there any racist phrases that you would defend from other people getting them purged from public view?

11/25/2009 12:24:44 PM

Quote :

"e appropriate response to offensive speech is ignoring it, not getting your panties in a twist and complaining to donors to the university."

No, it shouldn't be ignored. Other people should be coming out and saying that offensive speech is wrong.

11/25/2009 12:31:23 PM

Quote :

"disco_stu: But that's the gist of the entire argument isn't it? It's racist so it must be purged. It's not just offensive speech, it's racist! Are there any racist phrases that you would defend from other people getting them purged from public view?"

No. I pointed out the obvious racism (using the video as an illustration) in order to counter the notion that somehow anybody who is offended by "TSSRA" is misinformed about the phrase's meaning or intent.

The gist of the argument, which has been stated several times, is that students, staff, and faculty protested the chant, and the University responded by warning the chanting students and then removing the song from the playlist when the chanting students didn't stop chanting. The response to the song's removal? A "rally" where a few KKK members showed up to menace the campus for a little while, and a lot more than a few people came out to protest the Klan.

You're ignoring all this and acting as if the University's decision is akin to some outsider group of black people trying to ban the Bible from Duke Divinity School since the book was used to support slavery in the past.

11/25/2009 12:39:47 PM

The unfortunate reality is black people are way to happy to pull the race card and so hypersensitive that they will create racial implications into issues that do not involve race at all. This Dixie at Ole Miss is one example.

For example my roommates mom does some real estate finance thing where she works with people to help them prevent their house from being foreclosed. They go around the country and see 1000's of people at part of a travelling convention. During a convention one of the black, overly narcissitic (I AM the son of God) type, coworker started rediculing something that she did. It was not a constructive critique in private. The guy was literally making a big fuss, over a stupid issue, in the middle of the convention center that was embarrassing and rude. The guy would not stop either and would keep stopping by her cube to make more snead remarks instead of letting the issue go. Finally my roommates mom got fed up and discreetly informed (who is supposed to be a professional) this african american gentleman to stop harrassing her, he was being embarrasing, and acting like a fool.

Sure enough the next day my roommates mom got pulled into her supervisors office (who is a black woman) and reprimanded as well as demoted. Apparently the obnoxious black coworker reported her and framed it to sound like she was picking on him for being black. Of course the black manager gobbles this up and without even hearing the other side, automatically accuses my roommates mom for being racist and states she called the guy a "fool" not b.c he was being obnoxious but b.c she doesn't like black people.

I truly think there is more racism among whites in this country not b.c they are tired of welfare queens or have it inherently built in passed down from one generation to the next; but instead due to all this double standard, extreme political correctness, and all the excessive framing done by the Al Sharpton types to turn racially neutral news stories into ones with some hidden racist spin.

Like the university banning this Dixie song (to be more politically correct and appease the minority student groups), a school tradition, I guarentee stirred more racist sentiment than drunken rednecks singing a dumb song at a football game.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : a]

11/25/2009 12:58:21 PM

Quote :

"No, it shouldn't be ignored. Other people should be coming out and saying that offensive speech is wrong."

Just to be clear. You think that the right of a person to not be offended trumps another person's First Amendment rights?

--------
Bridget, your entire post reinforces that the fact that it's a racist comment is what makes it icky and worth purging. I am ignoring the fact that it's racist because it should not be relevant. A person or group of dumbfucks should be allowed to yell racist remarks.

Quote :

"A "rally" where a few KKK members showed up to menace the campus for a little while, and a lot more than a few people came out to protest the Klan."

So because more people support censorship it makes it right?

11/25/2009 1:03:58 PM

Quote :

"Just to be clear. You think that the right of a person to not be offended trumps another person's First Amendment rights?"

No, dude. I'm not suggesting there be any kind of act of government to silence these people. I'm saying that I have the right to tell someone they're an ignorant bigot, to their face, if I choose to do so. And that's what needs to be done. If we take your advice, and just "ignore it," it's not going to go away. The people that hate others because of their immutable characteristics should be ridiculed at every opportunity, otherwise they're just going to keep on believing what they believe.

As I said early in the thread, this isn't a free speech issue. This is a human interaction issue where people are saying disrespectful or stupid things, and they need to be called out and told to shut up by other people.

11/25/2009 1:21:14 PM

I totally agree; the other people are more than entitled to tell them that they're bigoted assholes.

However, you suggesting that it isn't a free speech issue simply because the government hasn't intervened is ridiculous. The freedoms that we're entitled to do not need to be enforced by the government. The Amendments to the Constitution are to remind the government what they cannot do, not what they should be enforcing.

Quote :

"The people that hate others because of their immutable characteristics should be ridiculed at every opportunity, otherwise they're just going to keep on believing what they believe."

Are they being ridiculed or suppressed in this instance?

Quote :

"If we take your advice, and just "ignore it," it's not going to go away."

If you take my advice you'll be happier not concerning yourself with changing humanity to fit your perfect world view. If all they're doing is talking, why does it need to "go away"?

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 1:28:28 PM

Considering the largest donor to the University (former CEO netscape) has said he dislikes the chant and fully supports an initiative to stop it, I have a hypothetical for you.

If he said he would no longer donate to the school unless this is stopped, do you think the University would have an obligation to do something about it? Such as simply asking the band not to play it?

Or should they just lose out on $100M because a handful of fucktards want to yell "The South will Rise Again."

11/25/2009 1:39:38 PM

The university can do whatever it wants about the chant.

But no one has the grounds to call this offensive speech in the context of a sports game fight chant in support of a black team.

11/25/2009 1:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Considering the largest donor to the University (former CEO netscape) has said he dislikes the chant and fully supports an initiative to stop it, I have a hypothetical for you. If he said he would no longer donate to the school unless this is stopped, do you think the University would have an obligation to do something about it? Such as simply asking the band not to play it? Or should they just lose out on $100M because a handful of fucktards want to yell "The South will Rise Again.""

No, the university should not have an obligation to censor it's students because a donor says so. What if the donor said that he'd prefer if everyone wear a particular colored t-shirt? Should they do that? It's not relevant!

Quit acting like this isn't about it being a racist comment. Imagine if said donor said he didn't like the abortion displays on the brick yard. Should those be removed too?

Quote :

"The university can do whatever it wants about the chant."

The public university should not be able to censor students in the name of not offending other people.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : public]

11/25/2009 1:56:01 PM

It's not going to censor them. It's just going to choose not to have the brass band play the song that often accompanies the chant.

11/25/2009 2:02:27 PM

Quote :

"However, you suggesting that it isn't a free speech issue simply because the government hasn't intervened is ridiculous. The freedoms that we're entitled to do not need to be enforced by the government. The Amendments to the Constitution are to remind the government what they cannot do, not what they should be enforcing."

It isn't a free speech issue because no one is being told that they can't say TSWRA. They were told "stop chanting it, or we're not going to play this song anymore." They can still chant it, if they want. And, if the University administration says "look, this is our stadium and our event, so either don't chant it at all or we're kicking you out," that would be entirely justified. You're allowed to say what you want, but you sometimes have to pay the consequences for doing so.

Quote :

"Are they being ridiculed or suppressed in this instance?"

They're definitely being ridiculed, as they should be. Suppressed, not really. No one is using force to stop these people from doing the chant.

Quote :

"If you take my advice you'll be happier not concerning yourself with changing humanity to fit your perfect world view. If all they're doing is talking, why does it need to "go away"?"

I don't expect to change humanity as a whole, but I'm going to challenge someone's ideas when they seem to be wrong. If a person's opinion is that black people are less than human, I'm going to tell them that they're wrong, and I'm going to tell them why I think that. The goal is to change their position. I aim to change their position because I understand that their views are potentially harmful.

If you're happy letting everyone believe whatever stupid shit they want, that's cool, but I don't think you have any idea what will make me happier. We'd be a lot better off if people would examine their beliefs, but they won't always do it on their own.

11/25/2009 2:04:21 PM

Quote :

"I believe in personal responsibility. Even if Bill O'Reilly had said "I want someone to shoot Dr. George Tiller tomorrow" I would not hold him accountable for that murder. The person pulling the trigger is responsible for his actions. Like ^^^ said there are probably some good exceptions to this like military orders."

Personal responsibility includes being responsible for what you say. If Bill-o were to say something as what you've described here, he should be held accountable for that. He's certainly held that others should be accountable for similar things, so he doesn't deserve a pass. You can't have it both ways.

11/25/2009 2:09:31 PM

But d357r0y3r is here to set you straight you retarded hick racists! He knows the best way to live!

^How should one be held accountable for what they say? How should he be punished? If he doesn't actually DO anything, what did he DO wrong? To be fair, I fucking hate Bill O'Reilly but someone used him as an example. I'm getting irritated with you jerkfaces associating me with the right because I don't give a shit about people getting offended.



[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 2:09:43 PM

You don't believe incitement to violence isn't worthy of some form of punishment? If it's not a problem, then tell me why more people on the air aren't saying "go kill this person, or go kill that person" because they disagree with some set of values? They don't because it's wrong. And even if it's not illegal, it'd end someone's career.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : I'm not associating you with anyone. I followed along with your hypothetical. Chill.]

11/25/2009 2:12:45 PM

Person X says "go kill someone" to person Y. Person Y does nothing. Should person X be punished?

I'll go ahead and answer that. "No.". If person Y does kill someone, nothing has changed for person X's actions. Person Y is responsible for his own actions.

Now, conspiring with someone to kill another or commit a crime is an entirely different story. If Person X, called Person Y, gave him details on how to kill someone, and then did not go to the police after person Y kills someone, that is obviously accessory to commit murder.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 2:14:44 PM