Apparently the Kentucky Derby is racist
 

Don't shoot the messenger!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/so...-is-offensive/

NOOOOO this is terrifying!

Your use of the word shoot exceeds what can be considered reasonable and acceptable. Not only that, it violates the environment of inclusion here at DT. Steve, can you please hire a sufficient number of safe space facilitators for those of us who have been traumatized (... and, if not, can you give me the name and number of a good attorney, Pointman?).

Honestly, what next? The whole world has gone mad.

Good thing they don't have their party this weekend with a Masters theme..

I assumed they were protesting that the same five trainers get 90% of the horses.

:tro:

From the article:

"Despite Oydanich’s claim that the Derby party related to the antebellum South, the first Kentucky Derby was actually held in 1875, ten years after the Civil War ended."

.... in which Kentucky was on the Union side.

Once again reminded that "Ivy League" =/= "brightest."

:tro::D

I am flabbergasted ...all I can say is that is has now been confirmed that there are more horse asses on the world than there are horses:)

Sorry, MM. I just got out of a safe space after seeing Trump chalked on a sidewalk, now I have to run back into it after seeing this thread.

What is so shocking is the power that these people have. It seems that whenever these groups complain and protest about something, they always get their way, no matter how frivolous their grievance is. The powers that be always cave in. On college campuses, the vocal minority have more power than the silent majority. I'm not saying that minority demands should not be considered. They should be considered, but when deemed frivolous, as in this case, their demands should be ignored.

It's a balancing act, Rupert. To you, the objections were frivolous. To the people objecting, the issue is not frivolous. What needs to be balanced is how important is it to have a Derby-themed party when some people obviously find the idea offensive. (and to give the protesters some credit, let's at a minimum assume that people traditionally dress up for this party trying to look like Old South.) What are the sorority organizers giving up by switching the theme to Woodstock? Yes, they are "caving", but what are they giving up?

If this were a college course being dropped by the college administration for similar "reasons", I'd almost certainly agree with you. But changing a party theme to avoid hard feelings? Different story.

As I've stated at great length in the politics board, I am a big believer in the power of micro aggressions to affect people, but looking at the photo of the party from 2014, it looks like they dressed how they imagined people going to the Derby dress:

http://kentuckysportsradio.com/main/...eme-is-racist/

I also googled the racial makeup of the Dartmouth student body, and it's 50 percent Caucasian. The photo of the sorority members looks to be about 98 percent Caucasian. Since the party is invitation-only, I'm suspecting the issue is about more than the party's theme.

Absolutely ridiculous. This sensitivity crap is becoming more and more
Commonplace; especially with this generation. Get the fuc& over it.
There is no way I would support changing the event.

Right on!!! Bravo!!!
I faced a similar egregious situation just this morning. My paperboy (whoops, papercarrier) came to my door this morning wearing a Yankees T-shirt. An elitist 1 percenter organization. I, being a Mets fan, was so inconsolable I began to upchuck my Honeynut Cherrios. This cannot happen in our decent progressive society. I immediatley called " The Intelligencer" and reported said papercarrier and retreated to my safe place.

People being offended shouldn't end my liberties.

Just because someone complains about something, it doesn't make their complaint legitimate. Their thinking that it is legitimate does not make it legitimate. I'll give you another real life example. A friend of mine lives in a high-rise condominium building. The building puts up a Christmas tree every year in the lobby. Anyway, one of the homeowners wrote a letter to the HOA saying that the Christmas tree was very offensive to her (because she is not Christian). She claimed that when she got home every day and walked into the lobby and had to see the Christmas tree, that is was "very upsetting" to her. Do you think the HOA should have caved in to her and taken the Christmas tree down? Your argument with regard to the Derby party was, "What are they giving up?" I guess you could make the same argument here. I mean it wouldn't be that big of a deal to not have a Christmas tree. But the bottom line is that the vast majority of the people in that building like having a nice Christmas tree in the lobby. In addition, there is hardly a rational person that would find it offensive. I would say the same for the Ky Derby party.

By the way, the HOA did not cave in to that woman. They did not take the Christmas tree down.

What if someone finds the Woodstock theme offensive? That was kind of a culture sex and drugs. If someone found that theme offensive, would that be a legitimate complaint? You seem to have made the assertion that just because a person complains about something, that there must be some legitimacy to the complaint. I would disagree with that.

Exactly! And this is especially true nowadays when people seem to be offended by almost anything, no matter how innocuous.

:tro::tro::tro::tro:

I love the interwebs.

I made no judgement as to the "legitimacy" of the complaint. I only stated that the issue was important to those complaining. What do you even mean by "legitimate"? Do you mean 'rational'? To label them or your Christmas tree complainant as not "rational" is way off base, IMO. I may think that the Derby-party complaints are ridiculous, but that doesn't make them irrational.

Here's a difference between the Derby party and the Christmas tree. The Christmas tree cannot be replaced by something that would be just about equally appealing to those advocating it. Are you going to tell me that a Derby-themed party has some sort of uniqueness that is irreplaceable? We're racing fans here, but that's nonsense.

So what it boils down to is stubbornness, not "liberty". No one forced the sorority to make that decision. But a decision made in favor of campus harmony (at no tangible cost to the goals of the party), is seen by you and others as some sort of awful capitulation.

--Dunbar

http://thedartmouth.com/2016/04/07/k...years-protest/

did anyone read this? it's linked to in the article at the top of the thread.

i don't get why this move is a big deal for anyone. sure it's for the sorority.