App State dorm bulletin board shames 'privileged' students

[NewApp]

This guy should apply for an internship with Jesse or Al and learn how to turn whitey hate into cash.

RP, Moody.

[NewApp]

It takes a lot of gall to outright call him a liar and say he needs a thicker skin. The same people saying he needs a thicker skin are the ones who are offended by a bulletin board that was stating facts. "But, but the bulletin board was accusatory, and well... Uhhh I can't say the N-word but they can say cracker.... Waaah, double standard waaah".

You have absolutely no regard for context if you feel this way and clearly just want to be offended.

While you pat yourself on the back for retention rates I think a bigger question is raised here. Is App the least diverse school in the UNC system? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

If you are talking to me, FTR, I never called him a liar.

[Gonzo]

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... ntroversy/

Looks like one of the students who expressed her concerns in one of the articles about the bulletin board has been cyber bullied into submission.

Even in the face of negative feedback, University Housing insists on keeping the tripe on the wall. I guess it's easy to ignore dissent when anyone who dares disagree is promptly crucified. What a fair dialogue this has been for Appalachian.

[Rekdiver]

This guy should apply for an internship with Jesse or Al and learn how to turn whitey hate into cash.

RP, Moody.

See you guys think this is funny. it's not.

[bcoach]

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... ntroversy/

Looks like one of the students who expressed her concerns in one of the articles about the bulletin board has been cyber bullied into submission.

Even in the face of negative feedback, University Housing insists on keeping the tripe on the wall. I guess it's easy to ignore dissent when anyone who dares disagree is promptly crucified. What a fair dialogue this has been for Appalachian.

That is the problem today and the reason nothing is going to change any time soon. You can not have an open discussion or even express an opinion without threats or being shouted down. Very frankly terms like white privilege don't help. It is a term that paints with a broad brush. A brush as broad as the one that folks of another race or nationality do not want to be painted with.
Statements like "don't go out alone" are also damaging to the cause. I have no hope that the solution is right around the corner. We as Americans have lost the ability to talk about things. We have to shout, and we have to win. Compromise is viewed as weakness. It has become something you would never want to be accused of. I fear that the strides we have made since the 60s are sliding backwards.

[appchicago]

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... ntroversy/

I guess it's easy to ignore dissent when anyone who dares disagree is promptly crucified.

Yep. Crucified.

(If by "crucified" we don't mean "put to death in a horrifically painful fashion by being nailed to a wooden cross" and DO mean "made slightly uncomfortable by an alleged post made semi-anonymously on a Facebook comments thread, the place where all rational discussion goes to fester and die.)

Come on, guys. A little perspective?

[Gonzo]

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... ntroversy/

I guess it's easy to ignore dissent when anyone who dares disagree is promptly crucified.

Yep. Crucified.

(If by "crucified" we don't mean "put to death in a horrifically painful fashion by being nailed to a wooden cross" and DO mean "made slightly uncomfortable by an alleged post made semi-anonymously on a Facebook comments thread, the place where all rational discussion goes to fester and die.)

Come on, guys. A little perspective?

It's a common figure of speech. Are you denying she was compelled by some level of harassment?

The point is it wasn't much of a discussion. One side of the argument continues to strong arm the other. There is no greater taboo in America than the ever-widening definition of an "intolerant" white person. If you don't buy into the narrative they're selling 100%, you're George Zimmerman.

[appchicago]

It's a common figure of speech. Are you denying she was compelled by some level of harassment?

It's a common exaggeration.

And I don't know what she was compelled by. It's Facebook. As even this comparatively gentle board regularly proves, people are animals on the Internets.

But alls I'm saying is that when one student said he heard ethnic slurs at Walmart, there was a chorus of "FAKE!"s, whereas when another student referenced a vague internet comment, it's a crucifixion?

The point is it wasn't much of a discussion. One side of the argument continues to strong arm the other. There is no greater taboo in America than the ever-widening definition of an "intolerant" white person. If you don't buy into the narrative they're selling 100%, you're George Zimmerman.

Your pizzazz is showing again, and I don't buy into the narrative that YOU'RE selling.

[TheMoody1]

If you don't buy into the narrative they're selling 100%, you're George Zimmerman.

The first white Latino.

[Appftw]

You're lobbying for the RA's freedom of speech to be taken away while simultaneously whining about not being heard over all the people telling you that you're wrong. That's rich.

If the mere "term" of white privilege "doesn't help" then you don't know what it means, but please by all means continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the statistics, experts, and common sense because of your butthurt.

The hypocrisy of it all reminds me of how so many are incapable of admitting that the Confederate army fought for slavery even though it was expressly written into their state constitutions and was the SOLE cause of the Civil War.

[NewApp]

You're lobbying for the RA's freedom of speech to be taken away while simultaneously whining about not being heard over all the people telling you that you're wrong. That's rich.

If the mere "term" of white privilege "doesn't help" then you don't know what it means, but please by all means continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the statistics, experts, and common sense because of your butthurt.

The hypocrisy of it all reminds me of how so many are incapable of admitting that the Confederate army fought for slavery even though it was expressly written into their state constitutions and was the SOLE cause of the Civil War.

There were many reasons for the Civil War besides the issue of slavery. One was simply the agricultural south vs. the industrial north.
Most of the men fighting for the South did not own slaves. U.S. Grant owned slaves himself.

[Appftw]

Individual soldiers may have justified it however they wanted but the country never would have come to blows if slavery had not existed and most hsitorians don't believe the "states' rights" argument and downplaying of slavery during the "Lost Cause" era. The two sections of the country were not that different besides the early industrialism of the North. Heck the Southern accent didnt even exist yet.

I was just pointing out that certain biases make us unwilling to acknowledge what others deem a "fact".

[HighlandsApp]

If you find the information on the bulletin board offensive, the only reason would be because the truth hurts.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... ntroversy/

Looks like one of the students who expressed her concerns in one of the articles about the bulletin board has been cyber bullied into submission.

Even in the face of negative feedback, University Housing insists on keeping the tripe on the wall. I guess it's easy to ignore dissent when anyone who dares disagree is promptly crucified. What a fair dialogue this has been for Appalachian.

That is the problem today and the reason nothing is going to change any time soon. You can not have an open discussion or even express an opinion without threats or being shouted down. Very frankly terms like white privilege don't help. It is a term that paints with a broad brush. A brush as broad as the one that folks of another race or nationality do not want to be painted with.
Statements like "don't go out alone" are also damaging to the cause. I have no hope that the solution is right around the corner. We as Americans have lost the ability to talk about things. We have to shout, and we have to win. Compromise is viewed as weakness. It has become something you would never want to be accused of. I fear that the strides we have made since the 60s are sliding backwards.

One word - we mimic the 24 hour news channel that to drive ratings ($) go on and on. OK that was one sentence but that is a huge part of the problem.

[WataugaMan]

You're lobbying for the RA's freedom of speech to be taken away while simultaneously whining about not being heard over all the people telling you that you're wrong. That's rich.

If the mere "term" of white privilege "doesn't help" then you don't know what it means, but please by all means continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the statistics, experts, and common sense because of your butthurt.

The hypocrisy of it all reminds me of how so many are incapable of admitting that the Confederate army fought for slavery even though it was expressly written into their state constitutions and was the SOLE cause of the Civil War.

There were many reasons for the Civil War besides the issue of slavery. One was simply the agricultural south vs. the industrial north.
Most of the men fighting for the South did not own slaves. U.S. Grant owned slaves himself.

I've often heard that General Lee freed slaves prior to and during the Civil War. General Grant owned slaves till the end of the war.

http://www.masshist.org/object-of-the-m ... 2007-01-01

[appdaze]

Individual soldiers may have justified it however they wanted but the country never would have come to blows if slavery had not existed and most hsitorians don't believe the "states' rights" argument and downplaying of slavery during the "Lost Cause" era. The two sections of the country were not that different besides the early industrialism of the North. Heck the Southern accent didnt even exist yet.

I was just pointing out that certain biases make us unwilling to acknowledge what others deem a "fact".

The federalists in the north tried to break away from the south shortly after the war of 1812. The split between the north and south had already started by the time Washington was even president. International issues clouded both sides as well with the north wanting to be allies with the British and the south the French. The civil war was brewing long before slavery was ever an issue. Until you go talk to most historians you probably shouldn't speak for them.

[Appftw]

Individual actions do not speak to an entire country's war aims. Here's an example of why I believe what I do (big picture):

The Confederacy had the key to winning the war in it's population the entire time, but it refused to utilize slaves as soldiers because of their beliefs. Slaves made up 1/3 of the South's population and had they been armed and allowed to wear the gray it very well could have swung the war back in their favor. Many Confederate governors and senators refused to allow it though because according to them it was antithetical to their entire cause and would prove that their way of life was incorrect (I don't feel like looking up quotes in the myriad books I have on the subject). When the Confederacy was on it's deathknell and had absolutely no other choice in March of '65, they finally relented and began to train slaves as soldiers.

[appdaze]

Individual actions do not speak to an entire country's war aims. Here's an example of why I believe what I do (big picture):

The Confederacy had the key to winning the war in it's population the entire time, but it refused to utilize slaves as soldiers because of their beliefs. Slaves made up 1/3 of the South's population and had they been armed and allowed to wear the gray it very well could have swung the war back in their favor. Many Confederate governors and senators refused to allow it though because according to them it was antithetical to their entire cause and would prove that their way of life was incorrect (I don't feel like looking up quotes in the myriad books I have on the subject). When the Confederacy was on it's deathknell and had absolutely no other choice in March of '65, they finally relented and began to train slaves as soldiers.

The big picture is that the sectionalism was already occurring long before the civil war began and slavery was even an issue. Your argument was that slavery was the sole reason for the civil war and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Many of the memoirs and writings from people in the north pretty much show that they didn't care about slavery like modern Americans like to think that they did. Many were simply indifferent. The whole idea that the great patriotic north swooped down and saved all the poor slaves from the big bad south has been spread so deeply within out culture that the truth is just glossed over. Even Lincoln didn't care as much as people think about slavery. The emancipation proclamation was aimed at trying to win a war by sparking up part of a population to hopefully rise up and cause issues more so than ultimately free the slaves. Many people in the north did not want the slaves freed because they were afraid that they would come north and take their jobs. The owners could pay them less therefore more would eventually be hired so their fears came true. Again before you speak about the big picture please find out what the big picture is. You are focusing on a small corner of the big picture.

[NewApp]

Individual actions do not speak to an entire country's war aims. Here's an example of why I believe what I do (big picture):

The Confederacy had the key to winning the war in it's population the entire time, but it refused to utilize slaves as soldiers because of their beliefs. Slaves made up 1/3 of the South's population and had they been armed and allowed to wear the gray it very well could have swung the war back in their favor. Many Confederate governors and senators refused to allow it though because according to them it was antithetical to their entire cause and would prove that their way of life was incorrect (I don't feel like looking up quotes in the myriad books I have on the subject). When the Confederacy was on it's deathknell and had absolutely no other choice in March of '65, they finally relented and began to train slaves as soldiers.

The North Had a much greater population than the South. In fact it was double that of the South,

[Appftw]

Individual actions do not speak to an entire country's war aims. Here's an example of why I believe what I do (big picture):

The Confederacy had the key to winning the war in it's population the entire time, but it refused to utilize slaves as soldiers because of their beliefs. Slaves made up 1/3 of the South's population and had they been armed and allowed to wear the gray it very well could have swung the war back in their favor. Many Confederate governors and senators refused to allow it though because according to them it was antithetical to their entire cause and would prove that their way of life was incorrect (I don't feel like looking up quotes in the myriad books I have on the subject). When the Confederacy was on it's deathknell and had absolutely no other choice in March of '65, they finally relented and began to train slaves as soldiers.

The big picture is that the sectionalism was already occurring long before the civil war began and slavery was even an issue. Your argument was that slavery was the sole reason for the civil war and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Many of the memoirs and writings from people in the north pretty much show that they didn't care about slavery like modern Americans like to think that they did. Many were simply indifferent. The whole idea that the great patriotic north swooped down and saved all the poor slaves from the big bad south has been spread so deeply within out culture that the truth is just glossed over. Even Lincoln didn't care as much as people think about slavery. The emancipation proclamation was aimed at trying to win a war by sparking up part of a population to hopefully rise up and cause issues more so than ultimately free the slaves. Many people in the north did not want the slaves freed because they were afraid that they would come north and take their jobs. The owners could pay them less therefore more would eventually be hired so their fears came true. Again before you speak about the big picture please find out what the big picture is. You are focusing on a small corner of the big picture.

I didn't argue anything of the sort as far as the "Patriotic North". Your inferiority complex is showing. Much of the sectional discord was because the constitution was very vague about the issue of slavery.