Gamma Phi Beta University of North Dakota Punished for Showing School Pride

[DrPhil]

Who said it is "a few"?

Even if it was "a few," racial ad ethnic groups (including whites) don't have to prove their offense. They don't have to form a team to prove they have a numerical value of offense in order for it to be deemed worthy.

Within-group, yes, people can debate whether something is truly offensive. Across-group, no, members of another group don't need to "sign off" on something in order for something to be deemed "truly offensive".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Within-group, yes, people can debate whether something is truly offensive. Across-group, no, members of another group don't need to "sign off" on something in order for something to be deemed "truly offensive".

Just as much as across-group individuals and groups can deem other groups to be a bunch of whiners who they don't have to pay attention to.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just as much as across-group individuals and groups can deem other groups to be a bunch of whiners who they don't have to pay attention to.

And those groups can tell your cluelessly insensitive ass to fuck off because they don't give a damn about your outsider opinion.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's 2014. Move if you don't like it.

Seriously? THIS is your solution? Just move? Wow.

I'm pretty sure if we could all leave our problems behind and move to this utopia you seem to think exists, we would.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Who said it is "a few"?

Even if it was "a few," racial ad ethnic groups (including whites) don't have to prove their offense. They don't have to form a team to prove they have a numerical value of offense in order for it to be deemed worthy.

Within-group, yes, people can debate whether something is truly offensive. Across-group, no, members of another group don't need to "sign off" on something in order for something to be deemed "truly offensive".

My thoughts of "a few" are base solely on my experiences and conversations of those who know first hand in their own home environments that the offensive stance is owned by "a few." So if one culture deems it offensive, and another culture says it's not, the first has more valid feelings? Who is right? Which Nation should the mascot's organization honor? Spare the feelings of one, shun the feelings of the other?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

My thoughts of "a few" are base solely on my experiences and conversations of those who know first hand in their own home environments that the offensive stance is owned by "a few." So if one culture deems it offensive, and another culture says it's not, the first has more valid feelings? Who is right? Which Nation should the mascot's organization honor? Spare the feelings of one, shun the feelings of the other?

This is as relevant as if I told an Asian person "I don't know what you're angry about! I know a bunch of Asians and they laugh at my 'slanted eye' jokes."

Does it matter that 100% of the population doesn't agree since everyone has different brains and not everyone attends the weekly (insert racial group) meeting? No.

Outsiders cannot tell insiders whether something is offensive to some insiders.