I’m also certain that you’re totally on-board when some racist asshole says “see, those three black thugs prove that all black people are criminals!”

Well just look at who isn’t all about that bass this morning.

The reason why this has to be dealt with so strongly is because this is not just name calling. This is intimidation. This is humiliation. This is the Frat, as a collective because they choose to be viewed that way, trying to dehumanize her. You are correct in that we dont want to have one persons actions represent an…

I would say yeah, shut down the chess team. If you’re in the room, wearing their stuff, you’re unlikely to be alone, and if you’re successful in your actions then obviously it is being condoned.

This is not unusual. This starts in elementary school in the US. If 10 of 30 kids aren’t quiet when the teacher says to be, many times nobody gets recess. Now, in addition to no recess, you’ve drawn the ire of your other 20 classmates so next time you think about fucking things up for everyone, you’ll take a step back.

Agreed! It’s time we reign in those clubs that harbor these horrible chess playing racists. They seem to be everywhere these days and it’s only getting worse.

Why do you feel entitled to a thoroughly reasoned response when all you said was, to paraphrase, “If we hold social clubs responsible for the things their members do than suddenly literally all organizations will disappear”?

Being in a frat does prime you for behavior like this.

Yes, the activities of your hypothetical chess club would likely suspended.

If you actually followed this logic through, there would be literally no organizations in existence.

If it was discovered that, say, members of the chess club - while spiritedly playing chess at their chess club meeting - also discussed the superiority of the white race and the benefits of the Aryan Brotherhood, the group would in fact be disbanded. Fraternities are purported to exist for networking and charity…

Well-reasoned, well-schmeasoned.

Black people are not a social group. We don’t choose our members. We don’t have locations, clothing, logos, and the like. So...not at all the same thing. Please.

Yes, dear. And drivers should be banned because they never follow the rules of the gorram road. And pedestrians should be banned because they can’t figure out what gorram crosswalks are for. Ban everyone! Except me, I’m perfect.

I’m not convinced that churches are “fleeing to the suburbs” because they’re being persecuted, but rather because all their congregants are moving out there and prefer to attend churches closer to their homes. Of course parking is a nightmare if no one lives nearby. Your one morning a week doesn’t get to dictate city…

I can appreciate that, but this isn’t impeding their religious liberty. There are other arguments that can be made, but this is a silly one.

This is very near me. Before people jump to say, “Oh my god, MORE religious liberty nonsense?” this is actually quite a different situation. This area is almost always a mess; DC traffic is already a nightmare, but we have a lovely convention center into which tens of thousands of people pour into weekly on top of it.

If it’s too congested and expensive for churches to be in a particular area, is that really a violation of their rights? Do they have a constitutional right to prime urban real estate? I think not.

But the quote came from the mouth of noted and studied basketball scholar Master P so I feel like I should believe it.

“If Kobe was his friend...Kobe, like, owns the team. He could’ve got the man back on the team...that’s all he wanted.”