Apparently the Kentucky Derby is racist

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

[fpsoxfan]

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.

[saratogadew]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

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.

[Poweshow]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

People being offended shouldn't end my liberties.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Poweshow

People being offended shouldn't end my liberties.

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

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

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.

Originally Posted by Kasept

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

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

Originally Posted by saratogadew

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.

I love the interwebs.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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

[Danzig]

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.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

I am a germaphobe. People at Woodstock did not shower for days and it makes me gag just thinking about how they relieved themselves during the festival. Hell they didn't even have those disgusting port-a-potties back then.

I am highly offended by the filth of this microaggression of having a Woodstock themed party. Shame on these girls for not thinking about germaphobes before changing the party to the Woodstock theme. I think they should all apologize to my fellow germaphobes, be expelled and the sorority immediately disbanded without a hearing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am a germaphobe. People at Woodstock did not shower for days and it makes me gag just thinking about how they relieved themselves during the festival. Hell they didn't even have those disgusting port-a-potties back then.

I am highly offended by the filth of this microaggression of having a Woodstock themed party. Shame on these girls for not thinking about germaphobes before changing the party to the Woodstock theme. I think they should all apologize to my fellow germaphobes, be expelled and the sorority immediately disbanded without a hearing.

let me see if I can manage to generate some empathy for Dartmouth sorority girls.....

eh....nope

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let me see if I can manage to generate some empathy for Dartmouth sorority girls.....

eh....nope

Danzig, it appears that the right to choose to NOT have a Derby-themed party, as the sorority members did by a near unanimous vote, is not part of their own liberty.

i equate this, roughly, to my wife telling me she doesn't like the shirt I'm wearing, an old fav of mine, just before we go out. I can't understand her objection to this green shirt (I know better than to say it's irrational), but I'm willing to switch to blue. She'll be happier, and I'm pretty sure I'll be just as happy with the blue shirt. My green shirt may have been "unique" in the narrowest definition of unique, but it's not unique in its ability to be a perfectly fun shirt to wear.

Changing a sorority party theme from Derby to Woodstock has about the same significance.

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let me see if I can manage to generate some empathy for Dartmouth sorority girls.....

eh....nope

Exactly. Regardless of the point they are trying to make, which in theory is rather ridiculous, I have a tough time believing that a Dartmouth sorority is really the source or point of origin where something like this should be even take with a grain of salt. A private institution that probably charges 65K a year for students to attend.

The kids probably have the same party with a different theme and are drunk by 2 pm regardless. Such a brutal sacrifice they have made. Instead of drinking cheap bourbon they drink cheap vodka and beer, put a tie dye and some hippy beads on. Tremendous sacrifice these kids have made. Music will probably be better though

Good lord. I maintain that some of the dumbest people I have ever met were my 5 years attending a similar institution

[Poweshow]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Are you going to tell me that a Derby-themed party has some sort of uniqueness that is irreplaceable?

I am absolutely going to tell you that there was some uniqueness to the derby party: it was their desire to have a Derby party, just like it is your desire to write back on this message board. Furthermore it is a tradition to have a derby party and they are at liberty as Americans to do whatever they choose and desire to do, but those freedoms are being infringed upon. These people are fighting, irrationally, for something that does not actually hurt them in any shape or form. Being offended is NOT a rational complaint, it is a selfish complaint. If you are offended you remove yourself from the situation until you are no longer offended. If you go home at night and you are still offended by a party being thrown across town... you are an irrational person.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

I don't see it as some sort of awful capitulation. I just see it as a pattern that we've been seeing lately where a group is given special consideration simply because of political correctness. If a group of non-minority students complained that the Woodstock theme was offensive, I doubt the theme would have been changed. By the way, I have less of a problem with a sorority giving in on this type of thing, than I do when the school administrators give in on these types of things. I think school administrators have a responsibility to treat all students fairly. There should not be special privileges for certain groups. Nowadays it seems that when certain groups complain about anything, no matter how ridiculous, the administrators cave in for fear of being labeled racist otherwise.

By the way, I have to admit that if I was being harassed by bullies over something ridiculous, I would probably cave in too. For example, if every time I wore a blue shirt, there was some psychotic person who screamed at me and told me they hated blue shirts, I would probably stop wearing blue shirts if I knew I was going to run into that person. The reason I would give in is because it simply would not be worth it to have to put up with the harassment. Who wants some crazy person screaming at you? It wouldn't matter to me that their grievance wasn't legitimate, I would just want to avoid the headache.

I think it is quite possible that the sorority was doing the same thing. And if that is the case, I think it is understandable. I don't like the idea of bullies forcing people to do something through intimidation, but I guess as long as the intimidation is legal, there's nothing anyone can do about it. You just have to make a decision as to whether it's worth it to stand up to the bullies. Sometimes it is just easier to give in and avoid the headache.