I guess I'd get kicked out of the school's SGA...

[TheHuckster]

To be bluntly honest anyone saying "All Lives Matter" at this point in the game is either a racist or an idiot. If you don't know wtf is going on with BLM after all this time but still insist on having an opinion on it like "All Lives Matter", you're an idiot. If you do know whats going on with it but still spew "All Lives Matter" you're probably a racist.

Yeah, real nice typically Gravekeeper-branded condescending retort.

ALM is a direct counter response to BLM. No one was preaching All Lives Matter prior to the BLM movement.

Of course not, because "All Lives Matter" is the default standard for anyone who's against any violence and hate. If race-driven violence were not an issue, but violence in general were, then we'd have a movement against all violence. Perhaps it wouldn't be branded with "All Lives Matter," but the same sentiment would be present. For the record, both race-driven violence and general violence (white on white, black on black, white on black, black on white) is a serious issue. There's such a thing as making statements on both fronts and wishing both went away. That's what I think a large portion of the ALM group is trying to say, which is we have several very toxic problems with violence in the United States. Race-driven violence is one of those problems, but it is only one part of a larger scope.

And when people from the BLM movement seem to focus only on instances where black people are being harmed, while completely ignoring (or even accepting, in more extremist cases) other cases of violence which also occur on a daily basis, then that's what fuels the ALM mentality.

Its a direct response that erases "black" from the equation and as such as become practically an automatic response to hearing BLM amongst certain circles. It was almost a pathological response at the RNC.

Yes, as I said, there are people who abuse the ALM badge with racist rhetoric. The majority I've heard from regular people who aren't trolling on shit discussion boards like the typical YouTube comment section are not touting the ALM badge with that kind of hate, though.

You can argue they're mistaken because they're reading too many ridiculous discussions between asshats who believe BLM is some terrorist movement and asshats who believe the average ALM is a bunch of racists, but quite frankly, I'm sick of the "idiot" label being thrown by you in every discussion like this. How about having a more civil and less insulting debate?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Both of you should perhaps look into the history of what "re-education" actually entails. Telling someone they need to attend a seminar on how not to say stupid racially insensitive shit if they want to keep their job as a public representative is not even remotely similar.

<-checks Wikipedia. Ok, so what I'm taking from you is of the 8 entries in Wikipedia, you're only accepting specifically Asian interpretations of functioning prisons. K. I'm using "A euphemism for brainwashing, efforts aimed at instilling certain beliefs in people against their will" which I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel the others are too.

With that out of the way.

If she had just been a student she'd get blow back from her peers and that'd be that. But she's an elected representative. One who is not only suppose to represent the entire student body regardless of colour but who is also paid out of said body's student fees. The students have every right to sanction her and she has every right to resign if she doesn't like it.

Sure. I have no problem with the student body sanctioning her. Two problems: one they made up their own rules to deal with this specific case. Two, she is not unrepresentative of other outlooks on this topic. Therefore, I'm sorry but yes people are going to respecfully disagree with the application of "diversity training" in this context since it is diversity of opinion which is not being respected. Even then, if they'd use proscribed procedures to begin with, I wouldn't even have an issue with it.

Personally I'm reminded of the BLM/All Lives Matter protests in Dallas that came together when they just talked to each other and then marched together. I guess maybe doing so requires recent murder both groups are personally affected by. I dunno.

Either way, as you said at the outset how everyone behaving in this scenario is rather stupid. Some people are too stupid to realize the phrase "black lives matter" is not an erasure of other lives. But conversely, some people don't realize that others are saying "all lives matter" also aren't erasing black lives. Some of the worst of both groups ARE doing that, but probably the best of both groups are interpreting the same inputs the most positive way they know how. Both groups are arguing against erasure AT each other. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

[Gravekeeper]

<-checks Wikipedia. Ok, so what I'm taking from you is of the 8 entries in Wikipedia, you're only accepting specifically Asian interpretations of functioning prisons. K. I'm using "A euphemism for brainwashing, efforts aimed at instilling certain beliefs in people against their will" which I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel the others are too.

With that out of the way.

No, I am including that interpretation as well. Attending a seminar if you want to keep your job as an elected official is hardly brainwashing against someone's will. Telling someone they need to learn not to an insensitive ass if they want to keep their job representing the people they were just an insensitive ass about is not "Orwellian" nor "Re-education".

Sure. I have no problem with the student body sanctioning her. Two problems: one they made up their own rules to deal with this specific case. Two, she is not unrepresentative of other outlooks on this topic.

One, I said how they dealt with it was stupid. So I was not disagreeing with that part.

Two, saying something stupid and insensitive is not an "other outlook". Having a different opinion does not automatically make that opinion worthy of respect. Especially in the context of an opinion that is stupid and insensitive with racist undertones. Doubly so when you are an elected official. Triply so when you are an elected official knee jerk reacting to a very sensitive and tragic situation.

But conversely, some people don't realize that others are saying "all lives matter" also aren't erasing black lives.

But they are. That is the fundamental problem here. Again, All Lives Matter was coined specifically as a counter and rejection of Black Lives Matter. And it is, has and will be used as such. Its never meant to be anything else.

The absolute best you can say about someone that preaches All Lives Matter is that they are an ignorant but well meaning idiot. But in this day and age and at this stage in the game ignorance just is not an excuse.

[TheHuckster]

But they are. That is the fundamental problem here. Again, All Lives Matter was coined specifically as a counter and rejection of Black Lives Matter. And it is, has and will be used as such. Its never meant to be anything else.

But a counter and rejection to what flavor of Black Lives Matter? Except for people in the RNC and white supremacists, everyone I've heard invoke the term "All Lives Matter" were denouncing the more extreme viewpoint that we should concentrate an excess of our energy on racially motivated violence versus other forms of violence.

I couldn't find a specific person, group, or time when "All Lives Matter" was first uttered, and unless you can find it, the real circumstances behind whether it was coined specifically with racist intentions or a knee jerk reaction to some of the more militant Black Lives Matter members is speculation.

The absolute best you can say about someone that preaches All Lives Matter is that they are an ignorant but well meaning idiot. But in this day and age and at this stage in the game ignorance just is not an excuse.

The meaning of a term is dependent on how people adopt it. If there are enough well-meaning people (not "idiots") adopting the slogan to include everyone together to condemn violence of all kinds, then that's the meaning the word is going to have. If you allow the racists to take over the term and make it and every well-meaning adopter a pariah, then that does no good to anybody.

D_Yeti_Esquire's mention of the Dallas peace accord between BLM and ALM speaks a lot to me about how similar the average member of each group really is, and how misguided I think it is to condemn an entire group for the hate of its extremists.

[mjr]

Telling someone they need to learn not to an insensitive ass if they want to keep their job representing the people they were just an insensitive ass about is not "Orwellian" nor "Re-education".
.

Really? What would you call this:

In a sense, however, the name is apt, since its ultimate purpose is to instill love of Big Brother—the only form of love permitted in Oceania—in the minds of thoughtcriminals as part of the process of reverting them to orthodox thought.

Emphasis mine.

Miniluv did indeed engage in "re-education" whether you like it or not. And according to the definition from earlier.

"Orthodox thought" in this case being "What the university's SGA says is correct thought".

And what does diversity training do?

It "trains" an individual about "orthodox thought".

[s_stabeler]

I think the debate here is getting a little off track.

1.I think we can all agree that, regardless of if the student in question deserves punishment or not, they should have gone through the normal procedure. Had this been the actual US Congress, then there would be howls of outrage, I'm fairly sure.(most basically, it sets a dangerous precedent if Congress can modify the impeachment procedure solely to ensure a President is impeached.)
2. it is debateable if the diversity seminars are re-education as such. On balance, I would say the seminars aren't Orwellian re-education in and of themselves, but the way they are used in the punishment could well be. ( the issue isn't with the seminars- which seem to be mostly informational- but that it sounds almost like she has to prove she's changed her mind as a result of the seminar. that IS Orwellian, since it implies the entire point is not merely re-education, but forcibly changing her opinion.
3. there's also the question of if it is reasonable to punish her for her comments or not. On the one hand, there is a legitimate point that the students may not want a representative who criticises BLM. On the other, it could easily have been a one-off comment, and so could easily be a gross overreaction. Again, it comes down to the fact that the SGA probably should have followed their own procedures.

[Andrew B]

I've been to a seminar like this. When I worked at Arrowhead, the permanent employees were required to attend, whether on the corporate side or not.

The way one of these things works is: you sit in a room listening to people speak for an hour or two, look at some boring slides, and at the end, you're given an exam, which, if you're paying attention, is fairly easy.

Anyone could probably BS their way through that part.

[Hyena Dandy]

What she said may have been stupid, but this is a very concerning response.

It's especially bothersome to write

An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted SGA and the UH student body

An order to put on a public presentation Sept. 28 detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.

Because while the other things are at least only punishments, this is a demand that she state an opinion which may well not be hers. I imagine that a response of "Actually, I don't think my actions were that harmful, I stand by my views" would not fulfill this requirement.

And it makes clear that if you are on the 'wrong side' here, you'll be punished.

There's a level where you're wrong, and you're so clearly wrong that some punishment is necessary. If she'd said she thinks black people should be rounded up and shot, that would deserve this type of punishment.

She is not a supporter of the BlackLivesMatter movement, and expressed this when several police officers were murdered. That may well be wrong, but I don't think it's "$1400 and public humiliation wrong."

I also take issue with the statement I read in another article that said that black students need to be 'adequately represented,' and that can't happen as long as she is in office.

Apparently, you can't be represented if there are people in student government who disagree with you.

Edit: Also, you know, a visibly nonwhite, apparently at least partially Indian woman being punished by a white man for not caring about minorities has a certain tinge of irony in it.

[Canarr]

What she said may have been stupid, but this is a very concerning response.

It's especially bothersome to write



Because while the other things are at least only punishments, this is a demand that she state an opinion which may well not be hers. I imagine that a response of "Actually, I don't think my actions were that harmful, I stand by my views" would not fulfill this requirement.

And it makes clear that if you are on the 'wrong side' here, you'll be punished.

Agreed. While there is still a huge difference between this punishment and Orwellian or actual re-education camps, the same mindset is there: we don't like how you think, and what you write, so we'll either force you to conform to our views, or we'll force you to quit.

If the student government had initiated the impeachment procedures in their own regulations, I would acknowledge that as appropriate reaction. But they're not; instead, they're subverting their own rules in order to punish a person who did something they disagree with, and that is simply wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

Edit: Also, you know, a visibly nonwhite, apparently at least partially Indian woman being punished by a white man for not caring about minorities has a certain tinge of irony in it.

And that, yes.

[mjr]

Agreed. While there is still a huge difference between this punishment and Orwellian or actual re-education camps, the same mindset is there: we don't like how you think, and what you write, so we'll either force you to conform to our views, or we'll force you to quit.

Thank you for bringing this up Canarr. That's basically my point when I referred to it earlier as "Orwellian". It's the mindset that scares me. And I'd almost bet that none of the SGA students had read Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[Rageaholic]

Holy Overreaction Batman! All she did was diss the Black Lives Matter movement and they're acting as if she came out as a member of the klan! Dissing the Black Lives Matter movement doesn't mean you think black lives don't matter, it just means you don't like this particular movement.

If they believe she's not accurately representing the student body, then they should go through the process, not bring out the torches and pitchforks!

[Estil]

I had thought of doing this topic myself but I suppose OP beat me to it! But seriously, I thought the whole water buffalo incident was absurd (google/wiki it). Seriously, she was put through all that humiliation and shame and Neo-McCarthyism (then it was labeling everyone a Communist, now it's labeling everyone a racist). It's a wonder she was brought before the University Committee on Intolerant Activities! :P Not to mention they're trying to shame her into going into a reeducation camp, sorry "sensitivity training". I did see some of that liberal indoctrination stuff back in 1999-2003 when I went to the University of Kentucky and that was plenty bad enough but seriously, until now I thought nothing could top the infamous water buffalo incident (again look it up).

So she is taking a two month suspension for doing nothing more than saying she is All Lives Matter as opposed to Black Lives Matter (for the record I understand what the BLM people are trying to do and I just think they'd do far better if they didn't insist on someone like Michael Brown being their go-to standard bearer/martyr). Granted her apologizing no doubt weakened her position but who can blame her after being so blindsided by all this?

And she's a Student Government/Council VP? So what?!?!? It's not like they have any real power anyway (at my school, UK, the President did technically get a vote on the Board of Trustees but when that one vote gets drowned out by all the others voting to raise tuition and such every year what good does it do?). And I bet most of the student body (until this point) didn't even know (or care) who the Student Gov't/Council VP was!

[EDIT: I can't believe I only just now found this out]: It just so happens she is an ethnic minority herself! But I thought liberals adore women and minorities and want them to feel "especially encouraged to apply"? Oh wait, that's only if they're fellow liberals. :P

Frankly I hope she sues that school for slander/libel. She did absolutely nothing wrong.

PS: And on this note, what's up with this emerging "safe spaces" movement? What, your dorm room, apartment, house, man cave, basement, park, secret spot in the woods/meadow, etc etc isn't enough? :P

[Gravekeeper]

(for the record I understand what the BLM people are trying to do and I just think they'd do far better if they didn't insist on someone like Michael Brown being their go-to standard bearer/martyr).

Forest through the trees, etc.

[Estil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Chamberlain_Sr.

If the BLM movement used folks like the one above instead of ones like Michael Brown their movement's effectiveness and persuasion would improve greatly. In this case, Mr. Chamberlain was a veteran Marine (you don't get much more patriot than that folks) who police showed up after his LifeAlert signal was accidentally triggered. With the LifeAlert recording all this the whole time, he politely told police that he didn't need help and that they can leave. But instead the "police" chose to barge in, with acts of genuine racism (n-bombs and all), and Mr. Chamberlain wasn't even doing anything wrong and there was never even a hint or suggestion of anything of the sort.

Granted the BLM does use this as one of their examples of police brutality and/or racism...but they chose to start their movement on the back of an incident where the officer (Darren Wilson) was proven innocent. I guess one of my main problems with the whole BLM movement was that it was started up on a lie. That would be no different if a "Women's Lives Matter" movement was started immediately after the Duke Lacross incident, jumping to conclusions before anyone really knew what really happened that this was an example of white privileged racist rapists getting away with a hate crime against a sweet innocent black woman. And we all know that's exactly how it really happened :P

[Gravekeeper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Chamberlain_Sr.

If the BLM movement used folks like the one above instead of ones like Michael Brown their movement's effectiveness and persuasion would improve greatly.

"Chamberlain's death is one of many police killings of unarmed African Americans protested by the Black Lives Matter movement.[32]"

From your own link. -.-

Granted the BLM does use this as one of their examples of police brutality and/or racism...but they chose to start their movement on the back of an incident where the officer (Darren Wilson) was proven innocent.

The movement started on the "back" of the Trayvon Martin case a full year before the Michael Brown incident.

I guess one of my main problems with the whole BLM movement was that it was started up on a lie.

So one of your main problems is, again, that you don't know what your talking about and clearly have no motivation to change that. But would still like to burden the rest of us with your opinion on the matter.