It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon Players to be ‘Disciplined Internally’ for ‘No Means No’ Chant - Thought Police

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

In you opening paragraph you state…


The chant was in reference to the rape allegations against Florida St. quarterback Jameis Winston.

I agree with you. But then you say…


Or maybe the players chanting "no means no" with the tomahawk chop were making a statement about STOPPING Jameis Winston from scoring on the field and winning the game.

Neither of these suggestions have anything to do with race.




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Imo including actions under "thought crime" stretches the very definition of "thought crime." Once one acts on a thought, it's not really just a thought any more, but a thought and an action. I didn't see anybody from Oregon saying "they're not allowed to think things like that." I saw the coach referring to their actions.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Well again your point is that it is only thought crimes against white males..

At least Winston case got made known to the public.
Zach mettenburger (sp?) Just xfered from Georgia to lsu and avoided the wait period iirc when he got in trouble.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Excellent Shamrock, #ing excellent.



This bypasses a lot of people.


"Thought crime" is a Layman's term to appeal to people's emotions & cannot be taken seriously when put into it's full context.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

This isn't a free speech issue. This is a sportsmanship issue. And there is a vast difference. The argument would have been considerably different had the players started the game chanting or wearing tshirts or whatever. Instead what we have is poor sportsmanship by the winning team. Their chant had nothing to do with protesting the handling of incident and everything to do with rubbing salt in the wound of the team that just lost. Raising awareness or demanding action wasn't the purpose of the chant.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1


White guys accused of raping black girl? Front page every day.


Didn't the same thing happen to Kobe Bryant?


Even in England that was big news.


How about the recent allegations against Bill Cosby?

I'm sure that's been on the front pages somewhere along the line.


don't like Obama's policies? You must be a racist.


Statistically possible & probable as a deflection... Some people cannot debate properly.
But it's also statistically possible & probable that this is in fact true of some people who dislike Obama.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jamie1

In you opening paragraph you state…


The chant was in reference to the rape allegations against Florida St. quarterback Jameis Winston.

I agree with you. But then you say…


Or maybe the players chanting "no means no" with the tomahawk chop were making a statement about STOPPING Jameis Winston from scoring on the field and winning the game.

Neither of these suggestions have anything to do with race.


The part that has to do with race is who the chants are directed towards.

Protesting against white cops - approved.

Direct ridicule to black QB - punished.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Thought police? I was unaware that any charges were filed against the players, or that they were being thrown off the team.

Please.

You may be the biggest "baiter" in these boards these days.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: KeliOnyx
a reply to: Jamie1

This isn't a free speech issue. This is a sportsmanship issue. And there is a vast difference. The argument would have been considerably different had the players started the game chanting or wearing tshirts or whatever. Instead what we have is poor sportsmanship by the winning team. Their chant had nothing to do with protesting the handling of incident and everything to do with rubbing salt in the wound of the team that just lost. Raising awareness or demanding action wasn't the purpose of the chant.


You're proving my point.

The student athletes are going to be punished for the "intent" of their actions. If there intent was to ridicule white cops, or the white DA, or whatever else was deemed an appropriate "intent" they would not be punished.

If their intent was to ridicule a black QB who was accused of rape, they will be punished.

Almost the entire Florida St. team left the field after the game in a show of poor sportsmanship, and nobody is talking about punishing them. During the games players get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct, but aren't further punished by the school after the game is over.

"I can't breathe" - approved
"no means no" - punished
"black lives matter" - approved
"All lives matter" - forced to apologize



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Remember that one time when some black athletes said something about another black athlete and were punished for it and then someone made a thread claiming racism?

Yeah, me too.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

The quote in the article of the OP is taken out of context and is only half what the coach said in response to questions concerning what happened. The left out part is that the coach said he "is aware of inappropriate behavior post-game."

Continuing to say that he's punishing them because of what they thought is projecting your own thoughts and opinions into the coach's head. So far every comment he's had on the issue is that he's going to punish the behavior and not the thought behind the behavior.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



Continuing to say that he's punishing them because of what they thought is projecting your own thoughts and opinions into the coach's head.
Incorrect.



So far every comment he's had on the issue is that he's going to punish the behavior and not the thought behind the behavior.
Chanting "No means no" is not on anyone's list of 'Evil things to do'. The thought/intent motivating the behavior is what's being punished.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Damn it must be tough for a white guy to live in this institutionalized racism.
#struggle



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Again, because that's what you believe. The school has an entire clause of it's student athlete code of conduct dedicated to unsportsmanlike behavior. I would say taunting an opponent on national television after winning a bowl game falls under unsportsmanlike behavior.

But hey, you're inside the coach's head and I'm not. Agree to disagree



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Again, because that's what you believe.
Then surely you can explain the inherent evil of chanting "No means no".

I'll wait.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jamie1

The quote in the article of the OP is taken out of context and is only half what the coach said in response to questions concerning what happened. The left out part is that the coach said he "is aware of inappropriate behavior post-game."

Continuing to say that he's punishing them because of what they thought is projecting your own thoughts and opinions into the coach's head. So far every comment he's had on the issue is that he's going to punish the behavior and not the thought behind the behavior.


What was the inappropriate behavior then?

The tomahawk chop?

Chanting?

If the answer is "taunting" then then implies the punishment if for the intent, or thought, behind the behavior, right?

The difference between "no means no" in this context, and players wearing "I can't breathe" shirts is the target of the taunts.

One target, white police, is an approved target.

The other, a black QB accused of rape, is disapproved.

If the intent of the action is to criticize white police, it's ok. If it's to criticize a black QB, it's not ok.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Cherry pick quotes all you want bub.

The school has a code against unsportsmanlike conduct. I would think it was fairly evident that the behavior exceeded the bounds of celebration and jubilation of winning the game.

Did the coach say anything about not liking their message? Or did he say he was aware of the BEHAVIOR? Can you find me anything from the coach saying he didn't like the thought process of the players?

I'll wait.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Taunting is an act, isn't it? So...coach says he's punishing the act. But somehow you're still saying he's punishing the thought behind the act?

Think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm mind boggled that somebody can't see how this was an unsportsmanlike act, and against the code the university has. If you want to make it about race, that's yor prerogative.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1




One target, white police, is an approved target. The other, a black QB accused of rape, is disapproved. If the intent of the action is to criticize white police, it's ok. If it's to criticize a black QB, it's not ok.


So wouldn't you have to have Oregon approving the protest on police, or I am sorry on white police, and then not allowing this to prove your point?
Where has Oregon, the school in question, approved one thing and not the other?
You are using actions of others to demonize what Oregon is doing.

Please call people out in the future about race baiting, seems you know all about it.
edit on ndFri, 02 Jan 2015 15:25:43 -0600America/Chicago120154380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

edit on ndFri, 02 Jan 2015 15:30:20 -0600America/Chicago120152080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The school has an entire clause of it's student athlete code of conduct dedicated to unsportsmanlike behavior. I would say taunting an opponent on national television after winning a bowl game falls under unsportsmanlike behavior.




Winston's "conduct" has included shooting up the school causing $4000 in damage, being accused of rape, stealing from restaurants, and of course jumping up on a table on campus and screaming "F** her right in the P***" even after being accused of rape.

And yet the Oregon players are going to be punished for chanting "No means no."



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join