University of Missouri Protests (Post Mortem)

[Moonbeam]

Go easy on Moonbeam. Years of self hate has declined his ability a self search. so he ask out of the need of community support to help.

Thank you for demonstrating how people with some specific kind of emotional burr up their ass and then conditioned by hate to despise their original selves for their original naiveté become the instruments for passing that very ass burred bigotry on to others.

What you couldn't have know as a bigot is what is possible for somebody who lacks your bigotry. My question as to what the fuss was about wasn't there to express my desire to know the details. I already knew them. My intention was to demonstrate that I am personally inwardly completely indifferent to the issue.

On the one hand you have a bunch of racially sick black people demanding that black lives matter, filled with the self hatred for their own race kindly passed onto them by the self hate of white people. and on the other hand you have those same self hating white people who can't face the fact of the damage their own racial group lacks the courage to face.

What you are witnessing is the madness produced by self hate, the mechanically nature of people who are emotionally asleep to what they feel and how they came to feel it. Once a person is infected with the disease of self hate he or she seeks some "Other" to lay the blame and guilt on. Nobody will allow themselves to die from their pain. All build an armor of ego denial to survive, all these sleeping robots wondering around trying to lay blame of the other for the pain they are afraid to feel, all trying to escape the realization that we were all made to feel like the worst in the world.

A dove calls outside. My cat sits in the window, tail atwitch. Cool wind registers on my skin. I am surrounded by beauty and peace. I have no race, no group or club to belong to. I came and I will pass away. You seek to cure the world by policing what people think but the war has no end externally. Out there is only the violence of gyrating programmed machines. There is no peace for wind up tops. If you want to be free, let go of all your issues. Relax and be happy. We only have this one little slice of time.

 

[interchange]

These universities where such incidents are happening are at a critical period at the moment. Now that so much pent up emotions have been expressed from both sides, they can either do what is necessary to abate the crisis and try to pretend like it never happened (thereby consolidating their experience as traumatic), or they can use this as an opportunity to respect the feelings of those involved, not the actions, and agree to partner together toward something more productive.

 

[fskimospy]

I said that not many people want to go to a school or support a school with racial unrest. Why is this statement such a problem for you? Is the basis of my opinion flawed in some way? Are you disputing the facts cited by the articles I linked? If so, please provide evidence that would support such a position and I'll reconsider my opinion on the outside chance that I've been grossly misinformed. Otherwise, please stop...you're just embarrassing yourself.

You most certainly didn't say that, your OP said that the 'backlash was huge'. A backlash would mean that people were avoiding the college because they disliked the movement, not because they didn't want to be in a campus with unrest generally.

I have a problem with that statement because it's based on nothing more than an article from an obviously biased source. This is a pretty frequent problem for you, which is why I asked you what your opinion was based on. Your repeated refusal to answer indicates your opinion is based solely on an obviously biased source again, which should be embarrassing only to you. Apparently it isn't, haha.

 

[PokerGuy]

You most certainly didn't say that, your OP said that the 'backlash was huge'. A backlash would mean that people were avoiding the college because they disliked the movement, not because they didn't want to be in a campus with unrest generally.

People not wanting to be on a campus with "unrest generally" doesn't explain why donations would show a steep decline. Donors don't need to be on campus to donate. People no longer donating or donating less constitutes a backlash. If you want to pretend that backlash was against ..... no idea, <insert your imaginary cause here>, and not as backlash against the protest etc, have at it.()

 

[fskimospy]

People not wanting to be on a campus with "unrest generally" doesn't explain why donations would show a steep decline. Donors don't need to be on campus to donate. People no longer donating or donating less constitutes a backlash. If you want to pretend that backlash was against ..... no idea, <insert your imaginary cause here>, and not as backlash against the protest etc, have at it.()

Exactly my point! Doc's articles make it very clear that they consider it to be a backlash against the student protests. That could be true, it could be false. Considering it's from a super biased source though, it would be nice to have some other more credible body to support that. Apparently Doc is very angry that people don't read clearly biased media and accept it uncritically. I for one don't know why he continues to read trash sites like that at all, but to each their own.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You most certainly didn't say that, your OP said that the 'backlash was huge'. A backlash would mean that people were avoiding the college because they disliked the movement, not because they didn't want to be in a campus with unrest generally.

I have a problem with that statement because it's based on nothing more than an article from an obviously biased source. This is a pretty frequent problem for you, which is why I asked you what your opinion was based on. Your repeated refusal to answer indicates your opinion is based solely on an obviously biased source again, which should be embarrassing only to you. Apparently it isn't, haha.

The Economist calls it a backlash as well. Are they biased too?

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...orts-placate-protesters-have-created-backlash

Of slavery and swastikas

The University of Missouri&#8217;s efforts to placate protesters have created a backlash

Jan 2nd 2016 | COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

If The Economist doesn't meet your standards, just google "university of missouri backlash" and click links to your heart's content.

 

[dainthomas]

You most certainly didn't say that, your OP said that the 'backlash was huge'. A backlash would mean that people were avoiding the college because they disliked the movement, not because they didn't want to be in a campus with unrest generally.

I have a problem with that statement because it's based on nothing more than an article from an obviously biased source. This is a pretty frequent problem for you, which is why I asked you what your opinion was based on. Your repeated refusal to answer indicates your opinion is based solely on an obviously biased source again, which should be embarrassing only to you. Apparently it isn't, haha.

If people supported them, wouldn't they be flocking there to join the noble cause? That's the way civil rights protests used to work (when they had actual popular support).

There's a difference between standing up to cops or soldiers, and following around innocent kids and harassing or assaulting them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Exactly my point! Doc's articles make it very clear that they consider it to be a backlash against the student protests. That could be true, it could be false. Considering it's from a super biased source though, it would be nice to have some other more credible body to support that. Apparently Doc is very angry that people don't read clearly biased media and accept it uncritically. I for one don't know why he continues to read trash sites like that at all, but to each their own.

I'm not angry. I just think that you're thick as a brick.

 

[SP33Demon]

Eski lives under a bridge. Just ignore him. It's obvious that this was a backlash of the BLM. Anything they touch turns to shit.

 

[fskimospy]

If people supported them, wouldn't they be flocking there to join the noble cause? That's the way civil rights protests used to work (when they had actual popular support).

There's a difference between standing up to cops or soldiers, and following around innocent kids and harassing or assaulting them.

I doubt many people choose their educational institution based on wanting to participate in campus protests there.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not angry. I just think that you're thick as a brick.

I'm not the one who once again swallowed ultra right wing media uncritically. Serious question, what on earth leads to you read trash sites like that? I mean do you actually think they aren't lying to you fairly regularly?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

^ Is this biased?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_b1641e8c-d285-5118-9d0d-347ca50a413b.html

 

[fskimospy]

^ Is this biased?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_b1641e8c-d285-5118-9d0d-347ca50a413b.html

Nothing in that piece says that declining enrollment is due to a backlash against the protests, it says it stems from the 'controversies', which doesn't assign blame to any particular group. This is probably because the Columbia Tribune doesn't have an agenda, unlike DSF's source.

 

[Moonbeam]

I said that not many people want to go to a school or support a school with racial unrest. Why is this statement such a problem for you? Is the basis of my opinion flawed in some way? Are you disputing the facts cited by the articles I linked? If so, please provide evidence that would support such a position and I'll reconsider my opinion on the outside chance that I've been grossly misinformed. Otherwise, please stop...you're just embarrassing yourself.

What arte the strengths of the conservative brain? One of them, which is an assessment that liberals may find hard to take, but none the less identified by the science of neurology dominated by liberals, is that conservatives have a better feel for the moral nature of people that determines how they work. In short, I think you have here a better assessment of what is actually going on and why people have responded as they have to this university situation.

I think, indeed, that not many people want to go to a school or support a school with racial unrest. You have a more accurate diagnosis of the mechanical lower level functioning of human ego.

I can, for example, predict that a black person at a KKK rally may experience more overt hatred from that group than some random white person. But the question for me is whether such hatred is morally justified.

As I explained above, I see only reflexive behaviors in black people who try to bully white people with claims they're racially insensitive. You can't force these black people to drop their feelings on command any more than you can force white insensitive to feel for those issues. Vacuum cleaners sucking on vacuum cleaners. It's all pearls before swine. We are all pearls who feel like swine, all sleeping machines, all fallen gods, walking round in the Garden of Eden with snake eyes, emotionally dead to what we really feel.

 

[dainthomas]

Nothing in that piece says that declining enrollment is due to a backlash against the protests, it says it stems from the 'controversies', which doesn't assign blame to any particular group. This is probably because the Columbia Tribune doesn't have an agenda, unlike DSF's source.

Is there another group causing unrest on campus?

I doubt many people choose their educational institution based on wanting to participate in campus protests there.

It's still a stretch to say donors cutting of donations, fewer students arriving, and more students leaving, is somehow a sign of support.

 

[fskimospy]

Is there another group causing unrest on campus?

You could say the actions of the administration caused unrest on campus, no? That is unless you think that Rosa Parks was the reason for the unrest in Montgomery and not the racist bus policies, for example.

It's still a stretch to say donors cutting of donations, fewer students arriving, and more students leaving, is somehow a sign of support.

So you think people not attending or giving money to the organization that the protesters are against is certainly a sign of being against the protesters? That's a pretty strange conclusion, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

These universities where such incidents are happening are at a critical period at the moment. Now that so much pent up emotions have been expressed from both sides, they can either do what is necessary to abate the crisis and try to pretend like it never happened (thereby consolidating their experience as traumatic), or they can use this as an opportunity to respect the feelings of those involved, not the actions, and agree to partner together toward something more productive.

A gear was thrown into a machine. All the permutations of the reaction will express. Where the light can enter it will, where it can't it won't.

There is a pendulum at operation in the humanity machine, a swing back and forth from the excesses of dictatorial repression, authoritarianism, and the excess that come with unenlightened liberation, the outpouring of repressed hatred. You can see it all at work in the Russia and the Arab Spring. Humanity rides the wheel of Karma without self understanding.

 

[SP33Demon]

This thread is the first time I've ever seen someone (eski-cuck) compare Rosa Parks' and segregation laws to someone driving by and yelling slurs at blacks (which had nothing to do with the administration nor can they ever prevent such an action). We've reached a new low in intellect here.

 

[woolfe9998]

People not wanting to be on a campus with "unrest generally" doesn't explain why donations would show a steep decline. Donors don't need to be on campus to donate. People no longer donating or donating less constitutes a backlash. If you want to pretend that backlash was against ..... no idea, <insert your imaginary cause here>, and not as backlash against the protest etc, have at it.()

People might not donate because they don't like the protesters and what they are doing, or they might not donate because the protests have convinced them there is a problem with racism at Mizzou. Or it could be a combination of the two. At this point, we don't know. The same goes for enrollment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nothing in that piece says that declining enrollment is due to a backlash against the protests, it says it stems from the 'controversies', which doesn't assign blame to any particular group. This is probably because the Columbia Tribune doesn't have an agenda, unlike DSF's source.

OK, but you do acknowledge that declining enrollment is likely primarily in response to the protests in general, whether it's "backlash" specifically against the protests or avoiding a campus with unrest or minority groups feeling unsafe or whatever else?

If so, then I'd argue that the protests would need a valid reason to exist in order for the protestors not to be blamed. Imagine a hypothetical university where claims of racism could be 100% debunked as fabrications by a disgruntled student or two. Even if this only results in protests that are 100% legal and non-threatening, it can result in significant damages to parties that ultimately were innocent of the accusations against them (boycotts, forced into resignation for PR reasons, etc). By demanding action before the accusation had time to be debunked, they turned what could have been a small problem (a violation of school policy to be investigated) into a huge one. Even if every single person avoiding the school did so because they believed racism was a huge issue on campus as a result of the protests, it's the actions of the protestors that make people believe that.

 

[glenn1]

I didn't say it was a good thing, I said that this kind of damage to the university was partially the point of the protests. How did you get confused by this?

I guess by your metric then folks burning down Watts after the Rodney King riots was "the point of the protests" also rather than a catastrophic output. The protesters sure did stick it to those rich donors who are no longer writing checks.

 

[woolfe9998]

The Economist calls it a backlash as well. Are they biased too?

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...orts-placate-protesters-have-created-backlash



If The Economist doesn't meet your standards, just google "university of missouri backlash" and click links to your heart's content.

The Economist is fine, but it cites only one source in support of this alleged backlash, to wit:

Kurt Bahr, a Republican state representative, says some of his constituents have told him that they regret attending Mizzou and do not want their children to go there, because they do not trust the new leadership of the university. One of his constituents even said that he feared for the safety of his daughter on campus thanks to the &#8220;instability&#8221; there.

So, it is based entirely off what one republican state rep says that "some of his constituents" have told him. Assuming he is telling the absolute truth, how many of his constituents are we talking about, 2 or 200? From here, I'll let you use your head in determining what a is actually "proven" by this source. Just think logically.

 

[Moonbeam]

it's the actions of the protestors that make people believe that.

Not so. The actions and the reactions are mechanical. People attach their prior belief onto present events. They are unconscious machines. Why lay blame or fix responsibility where none can exist unless you yourself are just a machine that has to do this.

 

[dainthomas]

You could say the actions of the administration caused unrest on campus, no? That is unless you think that Rosa Parks was the reason for the unrest in Montgomery and not the racist bus policies, for example.

What actions? Please be specific. Last I heard the whole thing was kicked off by something that occurred off campus.

So you think people not attending or giving money to the organization that the protesters are against is certainly a sign of being against the protesters? That's a pretty strange conclusion, no?

Presumably the protesters are paying to go to the university. Do they simultaneously support it and NOT support it? Schrodinger's SJW?

 

[Moonbeam]

The Economist is fine, but it cites only one source in support of this alleged backlash, to wit:



So, it is based entirely off what one republican state rep says that "some of his constituents" have told him. Assuming he is telling the absolute truth, how many of his constituents are we talking about, 2 or 200? From here, I'll let you use your head in determining what a is actually "proven" by this source. Just think logically.

All that a machine requires in the way of proof is that the purported evidence matches the internal programming.