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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

So your issue is with florida state allowing him to do what ever he wants and letting him get away with it.
Well he was suspended for half a game.

Again, what does Oregon's actions have to do with any of that?




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.


Well yeah, the Oregon basketball players did the "hands up don't shoot" thing. The coach said he wasn't happy about it, but of course didn't punish them.

The football players ARE going to be punished for saying "No means no."

What race do you think I'm baiting? Do you even understand what race baiting is?

Why would any black be offended that I'm opposed to Oregon's black football players being punished by their white coach for chanting "no means no? That's stupid. I'm defending the black players who are going to be punished by their white coach.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

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."








Terrific. FSU is a crap school that enables it's student athletes. Well by God that means Oregon can't hold their student athletes to a different standard.

Fyi: I've followed the Winston case since very, very early on. He's a dirtbag. He's skated on incident after incident. I expect nothing else from FSU. But I don't see how him being a dirtbag pertains to students at another university being disciplined for violating that university's policies.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



Cherry pick quotes all you want bub.
Return your gun to its holster please. You have no jurisdiction here. That quote wasn't 'cherry picking', BTW.



The school has a code against unsportsmanlike conduct.
How was it violated by chanting "No means no"? Intent has to be interpreted.



I would think it was fairly evident that the behavior exceeded the bounds of celebration and jubilation of winning the game.
You made my point.



Did the coach say anything about not liking their message? Or did he say he was aware of the BEHAVIOR?
So it must be true then? Have you thought about that? Can you think about that? Maybe you shouldn't.



Can you find me anything from the coach saying he didn't like the thought process of the players?
I don't need to, given that you can't explain the evil inherent to the behavior and resort to 'Coach said this so it must be true'.
edit on 2-1-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: add a '



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

So your issue is with florida state allowing him to do what ever he wants and letting him get away with it.
Well he was suspended for half a game.

Again, what does Oregon's actions have to do with any of that?


The parallel is to the white cops who were not indicted, and the black players NOT being punished for making a statement about them.

Jameis Winston was accused of rape, and admitted to other crimes, and he was benched for 30 minutes against Clemson. The Oregon players were making a statement about that, and are going to be punished for it.

That's what the issue is - punishing players for making statements that are not politically correct, and allowing other players to go unpunished for making statements that are politically correct.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Ah. And there we have it: it's all about race, because the coach is white. And you ignored my question about whether it would be different if the coach were black. Or if the players were white?

So, because one team wore t-shirts but not resort to any overt shenanigans or behavior, and another team had a few players show their collective hind parts on national television, it's all down to coach is white and players are black. Perhaps not race baiting, but certainly inserting race where it doesn't belong.

So with that, I'm out. Deuces



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

So then you have the coach not approving of the actions, so it was not approved as your said.
It was his decision to not take it any further.

And as you keep making this about how the white man is being targeted for being white, how is it not race baiting?


You have made this all about race since the OP.
It was all about how hard the white man has cause of the constant 'targeting' of white males.

The coach saw this as a taunt after winning the game, it was not a stand against the actions of the player.
All the stuff you talk about happened pre game, this happened post game during celebration, context is important.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Oh my. Now we have to resort to cop insinuations. Way to keep it classy.

I don't have to provide anything either bub. You're the one saying the coach is doing something counter to what his words portray. You can't "show" that he's disciplining anybody because of what he thought. You don't care to acknowledge the sportsmanship aspect of it, cool.

Take care homie



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1




That's what the issue is - punishing players for making statements that are not politically correct, and allowing other players to go unpunished for making statements that are politically correct.

But it is not the same people allowing one thing to happen and not allowing the other!!
FSU decided to let jamis continue with his actions, Oregon snipped theirs in the butt right away!



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

So then you have the coach not approving of the actions, so it was not approved as your said.
It was his decision to not take it any further.

And as you keep making this about how the white man is being targeted for being white, how is it not race baiting?


You have made this all about race since the OP.
It was all about how hard the white man has cause of the constant 'targeting' of white males.

The coach saw this as a taunt after winning the game, it was not a stand against the actions of the player.
All the stuff you talk about happened pre game, this happened post game during celebration, context is important.



Being about race and "race baiting" are not the same.

Black players are not punished for expressing themselves about white police. Black players are punished for expressing their thoughts about Winston.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

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.


It has nothing to do with the fact he is black, this is purely your own subjective emotional folly. It has to do with the sensitive issue of such a situation, personally I dont know what to think of the whole debacle of the trial and stuff, he seems to even be guilty, but he was found to be innocent in the recent school trial. People have sued people before for 'slander'' insinuating that a person is guilty of rape when it is a sketchy situation to begin with, on national live tv in front of millions of people, is 'untasteful'. I remember as a youth I was punished for saying less offensive things in less severe situations.

The real angle you should be going for is reading the transcripts from the trial, and seeing what a mess the entire event was, but the judge did determine what he determined, whatever that is good for.

Same exact situation, if the quarterback was white, the same thing would have occurred, I actually bet there would have been more outrage. If you do not agree with me on that, you really are not familiar with the sports world, and the world of college football in particular, and the media in general.

Everyone wants to be the morality police and hand out swift holier than thou punishment whenever they see the chance, as it makes them appear good.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

So you are not trying to imply racism when you say that certain people of race are allowed to target those of another race?

It is good to know your stance on race baiting, I hope it does change in the future.

We can agree to disagree on this op.
#whitemanstruggle



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



Oh my. Now we have to resort to cop insinuations. Way to keep it classy.

Classy? Your false accusation and your condescension were classy, bub?

I was arguing one very specific aspect of this situation, and it's obviously over your head.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Do you really think the coach wants to punish the players, noone really gives an ish... it is purely pressure from the media and anyone watching being 'offended' by 'distasteful behavior' and if the coach doesnt step up and say they will be punished, then the coach will be looked at bad like 'you will just let your players talk such highly disrespectful levels of trash in front of millions of people on live tv', you are suppose to be the coach of a prestigious school receiving a million dollar paycheck, tsk tsk, everyone is watching.

And I say 'noone really gives an ish', but truly in reality, in different circumstance, players saying that to Winstons face, it would have either been solved with a fight or a laugh. And that would be the end of it, maybe hard feelings or not.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   


How about these guys that a review of the actions hasn't even been set.

Check out number 12 that takes about the cheapest shot you can take on a player cause he got his clock rocked in the fight. And I mean he got KNOCKED OUT.

We have one coach taking quick action against players and and another school that has a player committing this on nation TV and nothing.

Of course I bet if I pointed out the difference in race in the players committing the actions it is race bating...



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Same exact situation, if the quarterback was white, the same thing would have occurred, I actually bet there would have been more outrage. If you do not agree with me on that, you really are not familiar with the sports world, and the world of college football in particular, and the media in general.


Now you're just making stuff up. That's a cool way to form an argument. Make up an imaginary scenario, then say if I disagree with your imagination I'm not as smart as you.

Nice.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think it's telling that the author of this thread also authored a thread about a woman being upset about racism. Racism is only okay to be upset about when the perceived victims are white, apparently.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1




I would bet my life if they were chanting "I can't breathe" or "Hands up, don't shoot" and the white coach said he was going to punish them, the white coach would be fired before the next game





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.



Hum, who else has been making up scenarios and then calling people intellectually dishonest if they disagree.....
#HardOutHereForTheWhiteGuy




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

And its not race baiting that way either...



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1


I'm defending the black players who are going to be punished by their white coach.



Then why do you keep making this out to be about a "black QB"?



The coach may have disagreed with "I can breathe" chants...
But punishing a protest could be a lawsuit waiting to happen...


Insinuating that someone is a rapist by chanting " no means no" even though he was cleared...
Well I just don't understand how you compare the two to be honest.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join