+1,000 - excellent post.

And the cable networks and AM talking heads have perfected it. When something happens, bring on a loon from the other side and you paint the "others" as misguided, even dangerous. The journalist professor was a gift to those in this last instance. What is not shown is that "the activists/protesters" did not rush to her request. But the talkings didn't care.

Sorry, but this is B.S. To type this to me, you used a machine connected to every single piece of data the world has ever created. You want to know the protesters demands? You can, in about 7 seconds. But the truth is, you don't. You want to discredit them.

Don't act like there was an honest dialogue taking place, but gosh darn, those protesters were just too incoherent and their methods betrayed them. The media on one side sensationalizes the triggering events, the media on the other rushes to discredit the individual actors, and 90% of our country rushes blindly to the side of the room they always stand on.

Hell, for further proof that this is the case, just read this thread. The lines were drawn in the sand before half of the things you mentioned had even taken place yet.

So you're saying even though some people thought this thing had clown written on it from a mile away, it was impossible to predict this would actually turn into the clown show that it is now?

I think the last time Robert and I were in a discussion on a contentious moral topic (about 2 years ago) we were on opposite sides of the isle.

I don't think we're both addressing you Shame because we've changed our views enough to come across the isle. Instead I think this Missouri thing is just so ridiculous that we can both agree.

That's funny because the trees on the isle were in my way when I tried to hear situation across the aisle.

Literally. LITERALLY.

Robert Fox came on here (not just in this thread but on this very page) and succinctly summarized my posts.

Am I being clear when I say you personally are a living breathing embodiment of white privilege in this country? Or do you really not understand how unrelatable your life in Oxnard, California is to the statistically average life of a black person in the Midwest?

Situation--Uh, I might not have grown up in CA. And, I might not actually spend much time in Oxnard, despite having a home there, due to working too far from there to be able to commute to my job.

Your assumption that you know all about others' circumstances...and pretty much everything that the world is about...is interesting. Must be nice to know it all.

+1

Oh no. I've lost BTC.

And I was so sure he'd have my back.

You should actually read what I wrote. Spoiler alert: You're gonna love what I said about how media on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty.

But frankly, I kind of don't think your opinion matters much anymore. This entire thread has consisted of several people saying "despite the many ways the protestors messed up this process, the underlying issues merit discussion." You and ol' Irish McIdontknowwhataswastika is insisted otherwise, and continue to do so. You are steadfastly arguing against discourse on the grounds that you shouldn't have to be bothered to read up on the situation, and your ignorance is justified because these protesters suck.

The irony there, of course, is that this isn't, and hasn't been a discussion of whether or not the protesters methods are strong for anybody but you and The Situation. In fact, everybody is in agreement that the methods were extreme, and that many of the individuals involved screwed up. Everybody else is saying that the issues merit discussion, and you--who have now acknowledged you don't even know what the issues raised were--are insisting they dont. Cool. You've brought a lot to the table here.

Edit: It's also important to note that your summary of The Situation's stance is revisionist, at best. This is the guy who put the phrase "racial taunt" in scare quotes, insisted that black people are simply too sensitive, questioned whether swastikas are even offensive to black people, and argued that you could spraypaint a swastika on the door of every jewish student at NYU and they wouldn't bat an eye. There was also something about how he, as a Christian, has the right to be equally offended by a swastika but wasn't, so ipso facto, black folks are just too damn sensitive. If you want to summarize all of that as a condemnation of protest methodology, feel free to give it a whirl.

But I'm the close minded one. Gotcha.

So you want to discuss the merit of the claims, yet you haven't raised a single claim yet. Your whining that we're not discussing the deeper meaning, but you haven't brought those to the fore--only attempted to berate me for not researching further.

I must've missed Situation's claims about jewish reaction to a swastika, but forgive me for doubting your interpretation of his comments. I'm sure he can clarify.

Honestly, you are making far more out of this than it warrants. And before that single phrase sets you into yet another tizzy--understand I'm talking about this ONE SINGLE PROTEST. Not the entire concept of race relations. Not the universal difficulty of man's inhumanity to man. Not some other philosophical rant you may wish to engage in.

Here's a summary for you: I think the Missouri protest was a complete and utter flop. It did nothing to advance the cause. In fact, it damaged the cause because it presented the possibility that these protesters are not very serious people. I would assume you do not want to make this particular protest the poster-child of the race-relations movement, do you? If you want to emphasize that the "big picture" is more important than this protest. Fine. Stop arguing about the protest. Start championing the worthiness of the cause.

Bottom line - President had to go for as the NCAA says, "lack of institutional control." Additionally, he had (and admits) he had lost the faith and goodwill of his constituents - the students and faculty.

None of us know the campus or its atmosphere. And while we yearn for blatant, excessive examples, sometimes it is, as one campus administrator put it "death by a 1,000 paper cuts." It appears that those who feel they had been "cut" their whole life were exhausted that the flagship university of the state did not provide a reprieve. We can debate whether the actions on campus reached a level that warranted a tipping point. But again, None of us know the campus or its atmosphere, so such debate must be clothed within our own experiences.

We all (or close to all) admit there is racism and oppression (be it based on race, gender, economic status, etc.) taking place in our country - the degree is based on personal interaction. My experience in urban and rural south provides a different set of experience than someone in Columbus, Athens, CA, TN or DC... and I am a white, upper middle class male. I also think we all would acknowledge that our country is better than most in providing the opportunity to rise above such oppression. Better than most, but still room for improvement. Perhaps that is why we each do what we can to help those we see not having as cleared a path as we were provided.

While I believe both sides have a general interest in dialogue, dialogue, while incorporating healthy discussion, does not incorporate dismissive, insulting rhetoric. That is not dialogue anymore than compromise is "the other side agreeing with me." Dialogue is give and take. It is for the purpose of communication and education, not to win, or convince - there is a difference between dialogue and debate. The broader issue and concerns raised by Missouri require dialogue, not debate.

Perhaps Missouri will help us move to dialogue - true dialogue. That appears to be an initial move in Columbia, which in itself, will help make the change in Missouri of value.