Quote:
Originally Posted by MU2Driver
I've brought it up twice because it's a good point and one that you choose to ignore. Today you're fine with it because it doesn't affect your organization. One day it will be different and you will want a more thoughtful and nuanced approach.
The combination of condemning entire groups for the conduct a few and condemning because of speech (vile speech, but still only speech) is dangerous. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.
|
First, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THE REPERCUSSIONS OF YOUR SPEECH. It specifically addresses what the GOVERNMENT can do (or not do) to regulate your speech. You are still subject to the consequences of your speech.
Second, is today logical fallacy day at GC? Because MU2Driver, your argument is not, in fact a good one; Tu quoque and bandwagon fallacies do not help your case.
Third, we are not talking about one or two rogue members. We are talking about a self-identified group representing SAE as being horribly racist (not to mention stupid). Surely at some point during their new member period it was impressed upon them that they represent SAE in all their actions. Would I feel the same if it were my sisters? No. I would feel WORSE because I know that is NOT what my organization stands for, I would not want to be lumped in with them, and I would WELCOME any "sister" who acted that way in being shown the door, and any chapter which condoned, either actively or passively, that sort of unconscionable behavior having their charter pulled.
Yes, it reflects badly on SAE, but the fact of the matter is that any negative actions by any GLO reflects badly on ALL GLOs, and to John Q. Public the individual letters don't matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NRl66yUtG8