University of Missouri Protests (Post Mortem)

[Doc Savage Fan]

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?

You complain about the credibility of one of the two sources I initially cited, but provide no evidence of factual errors. You then complain about their usage of the word "backlash" and then suddenly go silent when I provide numerous other sources using the exact same terminology. You're nothing but a pathetic troll. Shame.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Why would I need to do that? My position is simply that the original source is not to be trusted and that there's ambiguity present as to the motivations of people not attending. Pretty simple, no?

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

How about you can't infer support or lack of support for particular actors in this based on people not attending the university? Doesn't that make more sense?

 

[SP33Demon]

Yep, it was a racial slur from a person who wasn't even a student that got these mentally frail millennial black students in a tizzy. Who the hell hasn't been insulted, especially if you're a minority (like me)? It happens all the time. You just reply with "You can do better than that, I've heard muuuuch better slurs", they get pissed when they realize you're mocking them and life goes on. Never seen such mentally frail and entitled kids these days. People are going to insult them and the sooner they learn how to deal with it and NOT be offended, the better. They win if you are offended, it's that simple and I wouldn't be surprised if more racists started going to that campus to antagonize them even more now that they know it will start a campus-wide protest. LOL

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

How much evidence of backlash do you need?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=university+of+missouri+backlash

 

[fskimospy]

You complain about the credibility of one of the two sources I initially cited, but provide no evidence of factual errors. You then complain about their usage of the word "backlash" and then suddenly go silent when I provide numerous other sources using the exact same terminology. You're nothing but a pathetic troll. Shame.

Well I can't read the economist article but if what wolfe said it was correct then what you provided is basically no better. Doc, people telling you that you're doing dumb things isn't trolling you.

You've never been very good at discerning between 'person thinks I have a bad argument' and 'person must be lying to me, trolling me, etc.'. I'm perfectly fine if it turns out that credible sources say that this is all based on people not liking the protesters message, but taking that from your original post would have been stupid because only a stupid person uncritically accepts obviously biased sources.

 

[woolfe9998]

How much evidence of backlash do you need?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=university+of+missouri+backlash

I already ran that precise google search, and after checking the first several links, I see no such evidence, certainly not of the kind alleged in the article you originally linked. The first on the list is Breitbart. Uh huh. Second is collegefootball.org which is talking about how there was proposed legislation to revoke a player's scholarship if he goes on strike. No mention of declining enrollment or donations.

Look, you're making the claim that donations and enrollment are declining specifically because people do not like the protests. You made the claim. I'm not spending my day googling around to find evidence to support your claim. I've spent enough to time already trying to substantiate it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well I can't read the economist article but if what wolfe said it was correct then what you provided is basically no better. Doc, people telling you that you're doing dumb things isn't trolling you.

You've never been very good at discerning between 'person thinks I have a bad argument' and 'person must be lying to me, trolling me, etc.'. I'm perfectly fine if it turns out that credible sources say that this is all based on people not liking the protesters message, but taking that from your original post would have been stupid because only a stupid person uncritically accepts obviously biased sources.

Yes, the Economist article is blocked by a pay wall. However, you can read it here:

https://sites.google.com/site/abronxcheerfornewmizzou/home/mizzou-chancellor-limits-free-speech

Scroll to bottom.

There is no evidence cited to support DSF's conclusion other than what I quoted: a GOP state rep says that "some of his constituents" said so. Still waiting for DSF to come up with something more persuasive than that. I'm not even resistant to the claim he's making. I just want to see it proved like anything else.

 

[dainthomas]

Why would I need to do that? My position is simply that the original source is not to be trusted and that there's ambiguity present as to the motivations of people not attending. Pretty simple, no?

Presumably because you asserted that the administration did something that justified all the protests. If it didn't, then the protests are unjustified. If they are unjustified, then all subsequent negative consequences would be the protesters' fault. (Regardless of the motivations of people not attending)

I did get a lol out of you comparing them to Rosa Parks though, so I'll give you a :thumbsup: for that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I already ran that precise google search, and after checking the first several links, I see no such evidence, certainly not of the kind alleged in the article you originally linked. The first on the list is Breitbart. Uh huh. Second is collegefootball.org which is talking about how there was proposed legislation to revoke a player's scholarship if he goes on strike. No mention of declining enrollment or donations.

Look, you're making the claim that donations and enrollment are declining specifically because people do not like the protests. You made the claim. I'm not spending my day googling around to find evidence to support your claim. I've spent enough to time already trying to substantiate it.

You're killing me here.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_85bdd638-1982-54e3-9c7c-1c04bd81cf9a.html

“While we don’t have any clear data, we know that the events this past fall have had an impact, and we are answering any questions that parents and students have about those events,” - Chuck May, Director of Admissions

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_f58d83a7-c570-5f0c-869c-fabea63facdd.html

“They are very, very angry with the University of Missouri,” Ward said of lawmakers. “The discussion is all the way from a haircut to no funding.”

These statements were from last January and came directly from the horse's mouth. Since then, their have been many articles from numerous sources confirming the enrollment decline and eroding financial support as a result of the protests. I'm actually incredulous that the backlash the university is suffering as a result of the protests is even in question.

 

[fskimospy]

You're killing me here.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_85bdd638-1982-54e3-9c7c-1c04bd81cf9a.html

“While we don’t have any clear data, we know that the events this past fall have had an impact, and we are answering any questions that parents and students have about those events,” - Chuck May, Director of Admissions

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_f58d83a7-c570-5f0c-869c-fabea63facdd.html

“They are very, very angry with the University of Missouri,” Ward said of lawmakers. “The discussion is all the way from a haircut to no funding.”

These statements were from last January and came directly from the horse's mouth. Since then, their have been many articles from numerous sources confirming the enrollment decline and eroding financial support as a result of the protests. I'm actually incredulous that the backlash the university is suffering as a result of the protests is even in question.

Dude, that doesn't substantiate your claim either.

Take a step back and think for a minute.

 

[Spungo]

The protesters sure did stick it to those rich donors who are no longer writing checks.

We don't want your white patriarchy dollars!

I'm convinced most of this is due to the global economic situation. People will tolerate lots of bullshit when the money is flowing and people have jobs. When the economy slows down, as it has for the past decade, people see problems everywhere. Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is unacceptable. These people are angry because they know their lives are shit. Poll after poll shows that a large percentage of Americans believe the American dream is dead. People want someone to lynch, and it doesn't matter who. We can expect a lot more race wars and gender wars until the economy turns around.

Presumably because you asserted that the administration did something that justified all the protests. If it didn't, then the protests are unjustified. If they are unjustified, then all subsequent negative consequences would be the protesters' fault.

Exactly. The problem is that these protests are not justified. Every time social justice warriors throw out stats, the stats end up being lies. Remember when they said there was a rape epidemic on college campuses? The actual stats show that universities are safer than average, and every high profile rape case in the past few years ended up being a hoax (real victims go to the police instead of going to the media). They'll also throw out stats about not enough women in STEM. Did any of the women saying that apply to be in STEM? Nope. They're protesting against their own personal choices. None of these protesters are people going into STEM. You won't see electrical engineering students skipping classes to protest and pretend their lives have value.

In other news, feminist websites are seeing a dramatic decline in web traffic and revenue:
http://ageofshitlords.com/feminist-websites-are-losing-traffic-and-revenue/

Feminists also ruined the atheist community. Youtuber Thunderf00t did an excellent job of covering this while it was happening. What was once a thriving and rapidly growing community completely collapsed. After the "elevatorgate" drama, feminist SJW types started screaming about how sexist and dangerous atheist conventions are, so people stopped going. Crazy how that works. The left has even started attacking other members of the left. They turned on feminist Germaine Greer because she wasn't crazy enough for them.

 

[Jaskalas]

We don't want your white patriarchy dollars!

I'm convinced most of this is due to the global economic situation. People will tolerate lots of bullshit when the money is flowing and people have jobs. When the economy slows down, as it has for the past decade, people see problems everywhere. Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is unacceptable. These people are angry because they know their lives are shit. Poll after poll shows that a large percentage of Americans believe the American dream is dead. People want someone to lynch, and it doesn't matter who. We can expect a lot more race wars and gender wars until the economy turns around.

That's an interesting point...
And if you're familiar with economics you'll know it isn't turning around.
But perhaps that's another subject...

Exactly. The problem is that these protests are not justified.

Would have been if a person was a Nazi and didn't want to be represented by a pile of...
I digress, whether it be by fear or ideological opposition, does it matter? The protests drove division and people fled from a place that was most certainly NOT safe nor welcoming. The cause and effect is clearly felt.

 

[woolfe9998]

You're killing me here.

How so? I am just asking you to substantiate assertions you made in your OP. You're acting like I'm making outrageous demands. I'll tell you what. The next time I start a thread with unsubstantiated assertions, you can (and should) ask me to prove them. Sound fair?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_85bdd638-1982-54e3-9c7c-1c04bd81cf9a.html

“While we don’t have any clear data, we know that the events this past fall have had an impact, and we are answering any questions that parents and students have about those events,” - Chuck May, Director of Admissions

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_f58d83a7-c570-5f0c-869c-fabea63facdd.html

“They are very, very angry with the University of Missouri,” Ward said of lawmakers. “The discussion is all the way from a haircut to no funding.”

These statements were from last January and came directly from the horse's mouth. Since then, their have been many articles from numerous sources confirming the enrollment decline and eroding financial support as a result of the protests. I'm actually incredulous that the backlash the university is suffering as a result of the protests is even in question.

Your second link is totally irrelevant to your original contention. That article says the GOP dominated (72%) state legislature is angry at how the university handled the protests and so is considering cutting their funding. I have no idea how that even relates to the backlash you described in your OP. What does a "backlash" from a bunch of republican pols have to do with anything? Yeah, we all know the GOP doesn't like black protesters. OK.

Your first link is closer to the actual issue. An admissions director is saying, "While we don’t have any clear data, we know that the events this past fall have had an impact, and we are answering any questions that parents and students have about those events." I am emphasizing here a different part of the quote, obviously. I also note that the article goes on to state:

Increased competition in some of MU’s major markets, especially the Chicago area, also has affected applications, May said. Barbara Rupp, MU’s interim vice provost for enrollment management, said in a September interview the university increased its out-of-state recruitment efforts in response to small high school senior class sizes.

This year’s decrease comes entirely from nonresidents. May said applications from Missouri residents are even with last year.

So no one knows how big of an impact on enrollment these events had versus other factors, and no one knows the nature of any backlash which may exist, whether it is people who do not like the protests or people who think Mizzou has a problem with racism because the protests have highlighted it.

I'm also a bit curious why the enrollment drop is entirely from a decline in out of state applications. Any backlash against the protest should also be taking place in state, right?

But hey, you at least provided something else on point in your first link.

 

[glenn1]

Dude, that doesn't substantiate your claim either.

Take a step back and think for a minute.

So let's go from the other perspective of claiming the protests were successful or even neutral. Black enrollment to UM is down 19%, fundraising is down by millions, the state government is cutting funding by millions....

Basically if the BLM protests at UM were a "success" then I'd hate to see what a failure looks like and arguing about the reasons for it being unclear is incredibly obtuse.

 

[Subyman]

The nuanced semantics of this thread was an interesting read. Good job guys.

 

[Double Trouble]

Enrollment is way down, donations are way down, funding is getting cut. I've seen no evidence that these things are the result specifically of the BLM protesters as DSF claimed, but given the circumstances I can't see any other logical conclusion. Is there another plausible alternative conclusion?

The grievances at the root of the protests have been shown to be iffy at best, and the administration essentially caved to the demands of the protesters. If the backlash isn't against the protests (or protestors), what would it be against? (mostly) white donors stop giving money to the school because of unsubstantiated claims of racist incidents on campus? Bull.

I have several relatives who are Mizzou grads, they are angry about the negative image the protestors cast on the school, and they are even more upset by how the administration reacted. They are the perfect examples of former donors that are now choosing to no longer donate, and they are not going to send their kids to the school either. Anecdotal yes, but I suspect they are pretty typical of how most of the alums feel.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The essential problem is the backlash against the #BLM movement. The University appeared to coddle and bow to the demands, which many saw as a weak response. Several people in the protest movement REALLY messed up and showed outright lies, gross exaggerations, and hypocrisy.

Weak University = Not so appealing

I would want to go to school to get a good education and be challenged. I wouldn't want to take part in a social justice experiment.

Pretty spot on for someone that presumably went to a school for the mentally retarded

The ultimate issue boils down to bending over. If the president kicked out every single one of those students and said "well, I guess we don't have a football team for this year." Then I would be more willing to go to a school with admins that aren't stupid. These kids ty to act strong as a group, and thus guilt the admins to resign. The moment they stop bending over is the moment all this shit would crumble. I guarantee 90% of that football team would come crying back asking to be enrolled again.

 

[Spungo]

The ultimate issue boils down to bending over. If the president kicked out every single one of those students and said "well, I guess we don't have a football team for this year." Then I would be more willing to go to a school with admins that aren't stupid.

People and businesses like having a sense of order. Even if something is run by assholes, people at least know where the line is and can plan accordingly. When rules can change on a whim, that adds uncertainty, and people don't like uncertainty. It might be a good university today, but what about 2 years from now? When everything is up in the air, it's reasonable to avoid that uncertainty by attending a different school.

 

[Moonbeam]

People and businesses like having a sense of order. Even if something is run by assholes, people at least know where the line is and can plan accordingly. When rules can change on a whim, that adds uncertainty, and people don't like uncertainty. It might be a good university today, but what about 2 years from now? When everything is up in the air, it's reasonable to avoid that uncertainty by attending a different school.

You are right. Uncertainty is the perfect place for the CBD to project its fear. The world is full of conservative brain defectives and their paranoia produces observable facts. People who discount this fact do so at their own peril.

It is a survival mechanism to become rigid with fear. It predates the evolution of intelligence and the capacity to rationally assess risk. That is why as the grip of conservative paranoia grows, the number of paralyzed brains grow. Fear is the mind killer. Your position represents an ancient repository of genetic wisdom, but it is a disaster for the thinking human race.

 

[Humpy]

Pretty spot on for someone that presumably went to a school for the mentally retarded

The ultimate issue boils down to bending over. If the president kicked out every single one of those students and said "well, I guess we don't have a football team for this year." Then I would be more willing to go to a school with admins that aren't stupid. These kids ty to act strong as a group, and thus guilt the admins to resign. The moment they stop bending over is the moment all this shit would crumble. I guarantee 90% of that football team would come crying back asking to be enrolled again.

Does the ultimate issue boil down to bending over or is the essential problem the backlash against the #BLM movement?

 

[Wreckem]

The same thing is happening in gaming. It's an industry worth more than the movie industry, and competition is extremely fierce since anyone can release a game online for next to no cost. Do the game developers listen to the people, mostly men, who have money and play games, or do they cave to feminists who want all female characters wearing burkas?

I don't have any faith in the intelligence of individuals, but I do have faith in the intelligence of capitalism and free markets. Companies like Nintendo catered to pussies, and their market share has been in freefall since the N64 days. Does anyone on earth own a Wii U? Meanwhile, adult franchises like Call of Duty and GTA are worth billions of dollars, and adult consoles like Xbox and Playstation dominate the market. As it turns out, catering to people who have full time jobs and tons of disposable cash is a good business move. Who would have guessed?

You might want to look up the actual stats.

Worldwide causal games on mobile devices bring in more revenue than all the console system games(which includes casual games as well as others). Yes adult AAA titles do well, but Call of Duty had grossed ~$11billion in its entire 13 year history with more than a dozen titles. Candy Crush was making over $1billion(close to $2billion some years) a year, with much higher profit margins than any AAA title could ever dream of. Angry Birds, etc. Way more money than most single title AAA games. Then you have minecraft, one of the single most successful games ever.

FYI so you will stop spouting nonsense against casual games. Worldwide for 2015 = casual mobile games $30billion; console games $26.4billion.

 

[MajinCry]

Spungo goin' on his schizo rants as always. Bleh. And you guys going after Eskimo was just juvenile. SP33 Never disappoints.


The most that's been inferred, is that the protests have contributed to the retracting of donations 'n' whatnot, but fuck all in the way of substantiating the claim that the protests are the cause.

This went on for three bloody pages you dafties.

 

[Double Trouble]

The most that's been inferred, is that the protests have contributed to the retracting of donations 'n' whatnot, but fuck all in the way of substantiating the claim that the protests are the cause.

This went on for three bloody pages you dafties.

As I posted earlier, I haven't seen direct evidence that the backlash is the direct result of the protests (protestors). However, I'm still waiting for a plausible alternate explanation. If not the protests, what would be the cause of the big backlash?

 

[CurrentlyPissed]

Just want to say. Living in missouri my whole life. And knowing a few that attended Mizzou. Outside sources and reports like this are the first I've even heard of this racist crap.

Thanks to East St Louis growing, this entire area is threatened. Dealing with them every day in customer service. Its pretty easy to know where someone lives before even seeing their address. Its seriously that bad. And I dont mean by accent.

Missouri is on a threshold of white flight. And I cant say I blame them. Its becoming a nuisance. I hate to generalize, but Im in the field every day dealing with the public, and its safe to say that specific group of people are nothing but activist seaking attention, and things they can get for free. Everything is owed to them, they are loud, rude, and just embarassing for us as a whole, and anything you do, race card is pulled.

Also, sorry about the poor grammer. Was from the phone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Humpy]

Just want to say. Living in missouri my whole life. And knowing a few that attended Mizzou. Outside sources and reports like this are the first I've even heard of this racist crap.

Thanks to East St Louis growing, this entire area is threatened. Dealing with them every day in customer service. Its pretty easy to know where someone lives before even seeing their address. Its seriously that bad. And I dont mean by accent.

Missouri is on a threshold of white flight. And I cant say I blame them. Its becoming a nuisance. I hate to generalize, but Im in the field every day dealing with the public, and its safe to say that specific group of people are nothing but activist seaking attention, and things they can get for free. Everything is owed to them, they are loud, rude, and just embarassing for us as a whole, and anything you do, race card is pulled.

Also, sorry about the poor grammer. Was from the phone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

"specific group of people"

You talkin' about black folk amirite?