The Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Argument

On the morning of Monday, March 21, Emory students awoke to find a series of messages in support of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump chalked across campus. These messages, featuring phrases such as “Vote Trump,” “Trump 2016”, “Accept the inevitable” and allegedly “Build the Wall” evoked immediate responses from students, particularly from the Black and Brown communities. According to The Emory Wheel, a protest was held at around 4:30 p.m. at which students expressed their outrage towards the messages. They later met with University President James Wagner and other administrators to discuss their fear and discomfort, as well as the need for Emory to improve its resources for students of color and increase faculty diversity.

In a perfect world, these protesters perhaps would be recognized as voices for historically marginalized communities who stood up against a dangerous presidential candidate. In a perfect world, perhaps these students would have found compassion and understanding among their peers. Unfortunately, neither I nor the protesters live in a perfect world.

Once the story of the chalkings hit the national media, several opinion pieces appeared across various media outlets. Fox Sports’ Clay Travis called the protesters “PC bro pussies.” Townhall’s Matt Vespa described the chalking as “an innocuous display of free speech” that led “special snowflakes” — in reference to Emory students — to run off “like scared wombats.” The rhetoric is a less provocative in a letter  from The Emory Wheel written by Editor-in-Chief Zak Hudak (who does not represent the organization). While recognizing the pain and offense that the chalking evoked, Hudak argued that the protesters’ actions actually harmed, rather than helped, the overall conversation about intolerance.

In these editorials, the protesters are the villains. These authors transformed the chalkers into the martyrs of liberty, persecuted by a group of overzealous social justice inquisitors. Freedom of speech is the unifying theme in these articles — a freedom that, according to the writers, is being threatened by the protesters. Yet, in a report by the Wheel, one of the protesters clarified that what they want is for the University to acknowledge the pain caused to many students by the chalking. The report shows that most of the conversation revolved around the need for Emory’s administration to offer solidarity with students. As stated by Emory’s Black Star Magazine, “We are not asking for students to censor their politics … Rather what we ask for is equality and equity.” The piece went on to ask Emory and “individuals nationally to fight for our freedom of speech the way they fought for Trump supporters”

As an immigrant to the United States from a Communist country where people are often penalized for expressing unpopular opinions, I understand the importance of freedom of speech and how central it is to the well-being of a nation. That is why I must agree with Hudak’s position, that “Freedom of speech works both ways, and its hindrance affects both sides.” However, my biggest concern is neither the contents of the protest nor the chalkers’ action, but the selective application of the free speech argument through which one group of students is belittled and insulted for exercising the same right they supposedly threaten.

Yes, Trump supporters have the right to express their political opinions without censorship or penalties from the University’s administration. But at the same time, those who disagree, those who are hurt by Trump and his xenophobic platform, must also have a right to express their discontent.

The same freedom offered to the chalkers cannot be denied to the protesters.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, when anti-Catholic sentiments were deeply ingrained in the U.S., Catholics were perceived as a threat to religious freedom. In a popular cartoon from an 1875 Harper’s Weekly editorial, the cartoonist portrayed Catholic bishops as crocodiles whose aim was to destroy public education and, by extension, the liberty of the Republic.

This is a paradox of the American reality which the protesters face today. When marginalized groups — Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Queer people, Muslims, etc. — exercise their rights, they become the very threat to those rights. Therefore, they are expected to lay down and silence their discontent. Like those Roman Catholics in the U.S during the 19th and 20th centuries, these protesters are told by the media and their peers that their public exercises of free speech threaten free speech itself. They are told to channel their outrage into quiet conversations in tiny rooms rather than openly expressing it on the Quad

In his conclusion, Hudak wrote, “If we shut down the opposition, we lose our purpose as a university.” Yet, when marginalized students exercised the freedom to express their opposition, they were shut down by both the student body and by national media. Several Emory students reported and screenshotted threats of violence against them from strangers on social media. Most national news outlets continued to publish think pieces that portray these protesters and their allies as thin-skinned millennials who could not bear to hear a different opinion. If the actions of the protesters posed a hindrance to the freedom of Trump supporters on campus, what should we make of the insults and threats that they have received? Where are the concerns for these protesters’ safety to exercise their freedom?

The right for one to express his or her opinion, no matter how unpopular, must be protected. And no doubt, our conversations around the possibilities and limitations of free speech are important and should continue. But if we, the Emory community, are truly committed to freedom of speech, we must be as willing to support the protesters and to listen to their voices as we are willing to support the right of the chalkers. When we preach freedom but refuse to acknowledge groups of students their right to voice outrage, we are hypocrites.

Anh Duy Nguyen is a College junior from Lawrenceville, GA

278 comments

  1. Avatar
    WarGamer2016 3 years ago

    Gonna puke.

    That was a lot of words to say that these kids should be understood and empathized with.

    No…what they need is a good spanking by mom and dad.

    The point, you dolt, is that these kids should have been able to walk right past that chalking, dump coke or bottle of water on it and move on.

    The words they used to describe the impact these words written in chalk had on them dripped with self pity and reeked of weakness.

    What the ADULTS out here in the REAL WORLD find SO OFFENSIVE is that this is the behavior we would expect from kids in the 4th Grade. What scares us is that we have universities that are producing such emotionally and intellectually weak people. For all its beauty and for all the great people in it, the world is a harsh, tough, often brutal place and you need to be TOUGH, mentally, emotionally and physically to succeed in it.

    There is no bell curve in the real world. You succeed or you fail. You eat or you go hungry. You have roof and medical care or you do not. You COMPETE with everyone else and they play to win. Everyone else can be the woman down the hall who wants you gone from her team and out of a job just as your wife is about to give birth or the Islamic State that wants to kill you and put your daughter in a burka.

    There are REAL horrors in the world. There are things that are worthy of the emotions these kids described. Chalk on a sidewalk aint gonna cut it.

  2. Avatar
    Sean 3 years ago

    Anh, your analysis is shallow and ill-informed. First of all, you calling Trump dangerous is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Trump didn’t let Americans die in Benghazi or endanger American secrets by using a private unsecured e-mail server… No one is attempting to abridge the right of these students to protest something with which they disagree. Your University President even met with them to entertain and validate their claims. Contrarily, the protesters are being criticized for their limp, thin-skinned attitudes. Protesting “fear” and discomfort”? You have got to be joking. Babies also protest their fear and discomfort of things by pooping their pants and crying.

  3. Avatar
    Sean 3 years ago

    I’m fearful and uncomfortable that too many Emory students support Bernie Sanders and that the writers of the Emory Wheel are a bunch of drivel pushers… Will President Wagner hold my hand and change my diapers? Waahhhhhaahhh. Why don’t you agree with me? You need to emphasize with me!! Wahahhahahah.

  4. Avatar
    James Howard 3 years ago

    Generally, I agree.

    I’ll note that most of the comments still erroneously believe that the student protesters were asking for the chalk to be banned. Some even still believe that resources were being pooled specifically for counseling. Neither is true. Fact is, protesting and meeting with the Emory administration is protected as a necessary part of free speech, and nothing students did violated someone else’s free speech.

    What remains are objections to content. They don’t like millennials. They don’t like students. They don’t like protesters. They don’t like the divisiveness they see when race is brought up. I’ve read enough hyperbolic mischaracterizations of students over the past several days and enough threats that people won’t employ Emory students that the bullies are clear.

    1. Avatar
      ITHriana 3 years ago

      Personally I am against this article (I agree more with Mr. Hudak), but those commenters made me laugh hard as if HRs of decent companies really go trolling on the internet…

  5. Avatar
    ScottCU 3 years ago

    No one is saying that these protesters should not be allowed to protest Trump. The blowback is the result of these students’ way over the top reaction to seeing the Trump chalkings. They are quoted as saying they thought the KKK was on campus (Daily Beast 3/23/16), that they feared being shot (same article), and that it was unbearable that some other students on campus support Trump (Emory Wheel Sam Budnyk article 3/22). They then went to the President’s office to complain. That is not protesting. That is being overly sensitive and ignorant of life in the real world. Someone along the way has done a great disservice to these young adults by teaching them that the world centers on them. I get why they don’t like Trump. But here are some ways they should have reacted to the chalkings…1) *shoulder shrug* “Meh”; 2) pour their morning coffee on it to wash it away; 3) write “Never” before “Trump.”

    1. Avatar
      CJ 3 years ago

      They are quoted as saying this, but this is not what they said.

      1. Avatar
        ScottCU 3 years ago

        So the Daily Beast, a very liberal outlet, misquoted them? The reporter just created a KKK quote out of thin air? Doubtful. I hear a lot of back peddling from these kids now that they realize how silly they acted. Their story now is that they were upset the Trump supporters used chalk outside the designated areas. Ha!

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          Just because a source supposedly shares ideas with a group doesn’t mean a journalist can’t misquote, bud.

          http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

          1. Avatar
            ScottCU 3 years ago

            The Snopes article should get a mostly false. All it shows is that the report that the school offered emergency counseling does not seem to have a solid source. Snopes does not prove that the school did not give counseling. Why would you give the Snopes article any more credit than the Daily Beast or countless other articles who quoted many different students making over the top statements? The Snopes article reads as if it was written by someone holding a bias. Journalists can and do sometimes misquote. But there would have to be a lot of misquotes by every news outlet to change this story. The simple fact is that these fragile students, who are offended by their own shadows, are being rightfully called out for their actions. Now they are trying to make it seem like it was something else and that the reporting was against them. More victimology.

          2. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            If we’re gonna dismiss an article based on a seeming intent of a bias, which the snopes article doesn’t have, you’d be left dismissing every article known to man.
            Snopes is well documented for actually reviewing evidence of claims before rating a statement. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is probably more than a little new to the internet. Feaux news and the daily beast/mail have records of multiple bias incidents in their articles. Unlike them, Snopes actually operates like Wikimedia and weeds that out. So yeah, I’d take that over a well known bias source that needs a news story.

          3. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Yeah… basically a wiki that anyone can edit.

          4. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Wikimedia’s accuracy has been upheld as more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica by Nature magazine. Being editable by anyone doesn’t really matter when you have dozens of mods reading every article for falsities. Try again.

          5. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            That doesn’t mean a recent entry is correct. That’s no proof.

            Instead, How about you respond to this earlier post – calling for a moderator to boot someone from this forum because YOU don’t like what they said:

            Rose Hauser • 6 minutes ago
            Right. I can (ignore a poster). I’m just doing a service by getting someone to show him the door. Notice how I said request as opposed to command.

            John to Rose Hauser • 5 minutes ago
            Either way, it’s an effort to suppress. And I guess you’re the self-appointed arbiter of correct speech.

            As is typical of liberals, you don’t want to command it yourself…. you’re asking someone else to do it for you.

            Does the phrase “We need some muscle over here” ring any bells there?

            Hmmm… you’re losing points here. Quickly.

            You must be one of those whining Emory students.

          6. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            You’re talking about the study that found:
            “They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or
            misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while
            Britannica had 123.”

            Correct. That’s the one that you are using as proof that Wikipedia is “just as good”?

          7. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “If we’re gonna dismiss an article based on a seeming intent of a bias,
            which the snores article doesn’t have, you’d be left dismissing every
            article known to man.”

            Pardon, but that Snopes article DOES have a bias.
            This is what it wrote under “false”
            “students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.”

            This is from that actual Emory Wheel article:
            “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”
            —“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and
            safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by
            students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their
            silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my
            school,” she added.–
            —“What are we feeling?” Peraza asked those assembled. Responses of “frustration” and “fear” came from around the room, but individual students soon began to offer more detailed, personal reactions to feelings of racial tension that Trump and his ideology bring to the fore.
            “How can you not [disavow Trump] when Trump’s platform and his values undermine Emory’s values that I believe are diversity and inclusivity when they are obviously not [something that Trump supports]” one student said tearfully. “Banning Muslims? How is that something Emory supports?” asked yet another.—–

            I’d say that clearly enforces the idea that “students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.” Wouldn’t you???

          8. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Again, the chalk itself isn’t the problem. The protests were about the racist experiences students have had at emory. The chalking merely sparked the protest because it was so blatant. Nowhere are the chalking considered the sole cause. If you actually went to the school like I do, you’d probably already know that.

          9. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Again, the chalk itself isn’t the problem.”

            What the heck, Rose?
            You literally skipped over the fact that the SNOPES ARTICLE IS WRONG.
            And if it wasn’t about the chalk… then why are you telling me that the “chalk” was “so blatant”???
            O. My. God.

          10. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Let’s go at this from a different angle.
            If this wasn’t about the chalking… why were the students there?
            Why did they say:
            ““But this man is being supported by
            students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their
            silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my
            school,” she added.–”

            “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”

            Why were they in pain, and what bought that on?

          11. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            It’s as simple as this:
            1. multiple racist things happen to people of color at emory in the past few years. people bring it up. Administration does nothing.
            2. Trump chalking appear, including “build the wall” and “accept the inevitable” around the Latino center. given the obvious racial intent of placing those messages near the Latino center (keep in mind, those messages didn’t appear anywhere else on campus). Students decide to protest their treatment by going to JWags himself.
            3. Protest happens. people claim the protesters are silencing free speech for understandably feeling threatened by multiple racist incidents, of which the chalk is the latest and most blatant of.
            4. I’m on here, trying to explain this to people because I get annoyed when people jump to conclusions with half the info.

            Unlike you, I actally go to this school and have for three years. I have way more of a grip on this than you do. So calm down.

          12. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Its not about the chalking”

            “2. Trump chalking appear,”…
            3. Protest happens.”

            So….. its about the chalking?
            Yes?

          13. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            HA! I think she’s retreated to her “safe space”, er, I mean dorm room.

          14. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            According to Snopes, they never said that they wanted a safe space.
            They just said that… uh… they didn’t feel… uh… safe.

          15. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Yeah, but you can count on them having one. I suggested the dorm but she’s probably gone to Wagner’s office to demand we be booted.

          16. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            It’s called getting dinner mate. I actually celebrate easter with my family. Like an actual human. Considering you’re so well versed in how everything the world works, I figured you’d know that. I guess I really gave you too much credit.

          17. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Damn dude, stop quoting out of context. You’re just as bad as other John with that. That kind of logic is fallacious and makes your position look like it has no actual ground to stand on.

            like really, did you read anything I typed? About how multiple racial incidents happened, then the chalking happened with racial intent due to it being covered near the Latino center, then the protest happens because of the treatment from the racial incidents?

            Like I’ve said multiple times, the chalk sparked the incident by bringing this issue of racism at emory to a head. nowhere is the chalk the main focus, at all. it’s the atmosphere. Which you would have understood, had you ever gone to emory.
            Seriously, stop trying to put words in my mouth to feel good about yourself. I’m just trying to help remedy rampant misinformation.

          18. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Damn dude, stop quoting out of context.”

            You tried to argue that the protest wasn’t about the chalk. But then LITERALLY WENT ON to say that the chalk was what sparked the protest. How is that taking you out of context?
            The fact that racial incidents happen doesn’t explain why they freaked out because someone wrote “Trump 2016”.
            They protested because of the chalkings. Now you’re backtracking/foretracking all at once.
            No one has to put words into your mouth in order to feel good. We’re simply trying to follow what’s passing for logic in your head.
            You said that chalk was not the main focus. We never presumed that the protesters were actually protesting chalk. We get that the protesters were freaking out because they read “Trump 2016” and they – in their overly-furrowed brows – took this as something to fear.
            I highly, and I mean HIGHLY doubt that Emory is the place where people encounter more than the average every day racism that exists.

          19. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            BECAUSE THE CHALK IS NEVER THE MAIN ISSUE, THE RACISM IS.
            The chalk pushed the protesters over the edge after dealing g with racist bullshit for several years. So the chalk isn’t the main factor. You’re acting like the protest was caused by the chalk and the chalk alone when it wasn’t. Which is what I said. So when you quote me and IGNORE the entire paragraph that explains that the chalk isn’t the sole cause, you’re quoting out of context.

            Dude, I said this too. The “trump 2016” part wasn’t racist, the whole “build the wall” ALL AROUND THE LATINO CENTER was racist. Do you get it NOW??

            It’s about as racist as the rest of the south, which is above average.

          20. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “BECAUSE THE CHALK IS NEVER THE MAIN ISSUE, THE RACISM IS.
            The chalk pushed the protesters over the edge after dealing g with racist bullshit for several years.”

            I seriously think you never consider what you’re writing, when you write it.
            True/ false; the protest was after the protesters saw the chalk writing?

            “It’s about as racist as the rest of the south, which is above average.”

            Why are you there if you hate it so much?
            Heck… why are you in the South at all? Its not like Emory is cheap.

          21. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Funny, I could say the same thing about you.
            It did happen after the chalk writing. I said that. SIX TIMES. The point is that the chalk isn’t what they were afraid of, it was the blatant racism behind it.

            Have you read A SINGLE PIECE of the comments where I make it clear the chalk isn’t the only factor for the protests? Because it really seems like you haven’t. You’re trying to make it out so that the chalk is all they’re bothered by even though I’ve explained it’s about racism in the school to you at least four separate times now.

            I never said I hated the south. Do you just excel at putting words in people’s mouths for them instead of reading their words? Just because you acknowledge something has problems doesn’t mean you instantly hate it. It means you acknowledge it has a problem.

            I don’t pay more than about $800 to go to Emory, fyi. I have grant money covering tuition, room, and board. But that’s not exactly relevant now is it?

          22. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Have you read A SINGLE PIECE of the comments where I make it clear the chalk isn’t the only factor for the protests?”

            You’ve gone from saying that its “not about the chalk” to “its not just about the chalk”, so that’s a step towards being more honest.
            Rose, I can read what you’re saying clearly. For some reason, you’re loathe to suggest that the chalk prompted the students to go to the Dean.
            But that’s what happened.
            Not someone burning a cross on their lawn. Not someone scrawling racial epithets on their dorm wall.
            They were spurred into action by someone writing Trump 2016. Seriously… that’s worth making fun of.
            Just merely saying “well, a lot of racist stuff happens here” doesn’t excuse why the chalk markings of Trump 2016 freaked them out. They are precious snowflakes.

            If you don’t hate the South, then why did you say that the South was racist?

            The amount that you DON’T pay to go to Emory is even more important now, because you apparently got a grant to go to school… and you choose Emory of all places. Yet, you believe it to be a racist place in a racist part of the country. Why on earth would you go there?

          23. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I never said the chalk had nothing to do with it. EVER. I always said that complaints were not focused on the chalk, because they weren’t. they were focused on racism. This. Is. Not. That. Hard.

            Notice how I said multiple times the chalk is what finally tipped the scales after multiple racist things happened? I’m never implying it has nothing to do with it. I’m saying the complaint is the racism that the chalk is charged by.

            Apparently you don’t read what I say worth a damn, because you still haven’t gotten it through your thick skull that “trump 2016” wasn’t the racist part. it was “build the wall” and “accept the inevitable” around the Latino center. Why are you just ignoring that part, eh? If anything it seems like you just don’t want to acknowledge that “build the wall” and “accept the inevitable” were chalked at all.

            Because it’s actually possible to understand that the south has a problem without passionately hating it? Why is that so hard to get? Just because something has a problem doesn’t mean you ignore it and hate the cause, it means you try and fix it. You don’t leave your house and hate it because it has a bad water heater do you?

            You really have no idea how college admissions work now, do you?
            Grant money is given BY THE SCHOOL TO THE STUDENT. That means the grant money is only useful AT EMORY. You don’t get handed $50,000 to pick a random school.

            It is racist because it has a record of being racist. I didn’t know that when I was a high school student because I wasn’t immersed in Emory’s community. Similar to how you’re not immersed in it. I learned it was racist over the past couple of years. But again, that doesn’t mean it’s instantly crap and you leave it behind, it means you try to combat the problem. See, you keep saying the protesters are snowflakes who are afraid of problems, but it really seems like you’re the one that thinks the solution to a problem is to run away from it.

          24. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “I never said the chalk had nothing to do with it. EVER.”
            “Apparently you don’t read what I say worth a damn, because you still
            haven’t gotten it through your thick skull that “trump 2016” wasn’t the
            racist part. it was “build the wall” and “accept the inevitable” around
            the Latino center. ”

            You have an amazing ability to skip past your own words as you write them.
            If it had nothing to do with the chalking, at all, then why are you so darned passionate about what the chalking said? Why does it matter?

            Yes, I think that the protesters are precious snowflakes. Not because they are afraid of genuine problems. But because they see the chalkings as proof of racism, and it makes them feel “unsafe”.
            I’m curious as to how you see the phrase “build the wall” is a threat to the people who are inside of the country legally? Why? Or “accept the inevitable” as a threat connected with “Trump 2016”? Inevitable… what? Him being president?
            You see this as a threat, rather then a political taunt?

            “Because it’s actually possible to understand that the south has a problem without passionately hating it? ”

            It sure sounded like you hated it. But sure, its possible for someone to really like their racist spouse, while wanting to change it?
            RE: house with the broken plumbing; no.. I wouldn’t like my house if it had broken plumbing. But that’s just me. I certainly wouldn’t get defensive about someone suggesting that I hated my house if its plumbing was screwed.

            There’s all kinds of grant money. You apparently are new to this, being a college student who apparently isn’t from the US? Grant money can come from the US, the state, a high school, an academic institution that isn’t a school, a workplace, a grandparent, etc.. You never said that it was an Emory Grant. Now it makes me curious as to how you ended up there, before you applied for the grant.
            The point is: it was your choice to be there. Go figure. You were not forced to attend Emory.
            And you’re really, really, really defensive of anyone who criticizes the flawed students while openly criticizing the school and the South.

          25. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            See, you just misread what I said. I said that “I never said the chalking had nothing to do with it.” As in, a double negative. I never said the chalking meant nothing. I had a feeling you wouldn’t catch that, because apparently you’re the one who isn’t reading.

            “build the wall” and “accept the inevitable” all over the Latino center was obviously targeting the Latino center, because that was the only section where those two phrases appeared. They were put there because of the Latino center. Which means that whoever did the chalking intentionally targeted it with it. So yeah, it’s totally fine for Latino students to be bothered by a racialized message like that.
            See, I can see it as a taunt, because I’m not affected by trump’s insane policies. But Latinos as well as Muslims (of which emory has many) can’t afford to treat trump as a bad joke. They actually have to worry about that possibility.

            If it sure sounded like I hated it to you, then that’syour fault, not mine. I don’t see the issue other than you taking an analogy literally.

            See, that other type of money you’re referring to? Those are scholarships, not grants. Grants come from boards to specific students for attending a specific school, scholarships can be used at the student’s discretion. Don’t equivocate grants with scholarships.

            You don’t apply for grants from emory, they automatically consider you for them when you apply for admission. Again, basic stuff.

            See, I only respond to comments that set off my brain for hoe stupid they are. If there weren’t so many stupid people flooding the comments, it wouldn’t happen.

          26. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            You literally have no idea what you’re saying… and you don’t even fact check it.
            “See, that other type of money you’re referring to? Those are
            scholarships, not grants. Grants come from boards to specific students
            for attending a specific school, scholarships can be used at the
            student’s discretion. Don’t equivocate grants with scholarships.”

            From the department of education website:
            “The U.S. Department of Education offers a variety of federal grants to
            students attending four-year colleges or universities, community
            colleges, and career schools. We’ve given each of our grants its own
            page:”
            https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships

            Will you ever, and I mean EVER admit that you’re wrong?

          27. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Its not about the chalking”
            ” I never said the chalking meant nothing.”

            Rose, I’m just going with the idea that you have no idea what you’re writing. That whatever you write is slippery due to an inability to admit when you were wrong. (SEE: Snopes) (SEE: Wikipedia) (SEE: the variety of places that grants come from)

            “They were put there because of the Latino center. Which means that
            whoever did the chalking intentionally targeted it with it. So yeah,
            it’s totally fine for Latino students to be bothered by a racialized
            message like that. ”

            Explain what makes it racist, or what’s insane/racist about replacing a fence with a wall. Is it the effectiveness? The fact that it might work better?

          28. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Rose… why won’t you answer my post on how Snopes was wrong?
            Can’t you admit that they did get it wrong?

          29. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            She can’t admit. She’s given up I think. She won’t respond to my posts either.

            Maybe she’s learned something, but I doubt it. Probably gone to Wagner’s office.

          30. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Oh, sorry, I tried to send an answer to this like thirty minutes ago.

            Anyway, if it’s wrong, then yes. I’m pretty sure I can vouch for it since I was there, but if that’s not good enough than sure. I just want to correct misinformation.

          31. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Anyway, if it’s wrong, then yes. I’m pretty sure I can vouch for it since I was there, but if that’s not good enough than sure.”

            What?
            Snopes referred to the article by the Emory Wheel, and under “False” it wrote:
            “students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.”

            Clearly, from all of the quotes that were provided, students were traumatized or at least “in fear” by the chalk markings. Heck, you’ve said so much.

          32. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Again, chalk markings didn’t cause the fear, the continued atmosphere of racism did. Chalk was just the latest instance. This is like the fifth time I’ve said that. What part of that is getting lost in translation?

          33. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            I normally like Snopes. But as the other person pointed out, its way off base. No one has denied that the group of students were “hurt” and offended by their own words. Heck, this author makes it clear.
            Whoever wrote that particular fact check clearly has their own bias.

    2. Avatar
      coachTj 3 years ago

      I think that Daily Beast article was a lie.

  6. Avatar
    John 3 years ago

    You’re trying to play both sides of the fence.

    You’re only helping to ensure Emory grad resumes are put into the circular file.

  7. Avatar
    CJ 3 years ago

    I agree with what you wrote completely. One cannot defend the Trump supporters right to chalk (which I agree they have this right) and in the same breath say the protesters need to shut up, keep thier thoughts to themselves. Free speech works both ways. You have the right to say something, and the other person has a right to complain.

    To the commentors: Furthermore, I am disappointed that people seem to be so against understanding these protestors. What’s wrong with understanding where someone is coming from? We are adults and I do not think it is ridiculous to ask you to listen to someone and see their reference point. That does not mean that you have to agree with them. You can listen to someone and say “I hear where you’re coming from. But I disagree.” That is what an adult attitude looks like, and it’s immature to say that people expressing concern don’t deserve this. (I would also say that we need to understand that the Trump chalkers have that right, and I would also be happy to give their background context understanding if I was actually talking with them).

    The American public is continuing to divide itself into a mentality of “my way or the highway.” “I have the right to chalk Trump but you don’t have a right to complain.” “Your side doesn’t deserve understanding.” “You expressed a view I disagree with. You deserve a spanking from your parents.” Embaressing and utterly unproductive at fostering growth, change, or dialogue. And don’t try to argue that the protestors did this. They did not say that nobody had a right to chalk Trump, just that it impacted them.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      These poor little snowflakes were whining about bullshit.

      Had they real problems, I could see their point. Rewarding crybabies with coddling is not serving anyone.

      They need to grow a pair. And no one has crushed their widdle free speech rights. They now have a global stage upon which to display their pedantic whining.

      1. Avatar
        JP 3 years ago

        Both the protestors and people like you who have expressed similar sentiment are the people in the wrong. You’re being completely hyperbolic just like the protestors were. Wtf do you mean when you say “They need to grow a pair”??? Are you suggesting they just not say anything at all? People in this country have the freedom to protest ANYTHING they want, and YOU don’t get to tell them what they can or cannot be offended by. And you don’t get to decide what is and what is not a “real” problem. It doesn’t matter if its something as stupid as chalk on pavement, everyone in this country has the right to protest and it is un-American to suggest that people not use their first amendment rights. The reality is that you’re really just as much of a baby as you’re making these students out to be.

        1. Avatar
          ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

          “You’re being completely hyperbolic just like the protestors were.”

          Well, no.
          If someone overreacts and freaks out, its not unfair to say “hey, you’re over-reacting, and freaking out”
          I don’t have to respect the feelings of the person over-reacting.

          1. Avatar
            JP 3 years ago

            If you had written that the students were over-reacting I think a lot of people would agree with you, along with myself. But you wrote
            “These poor little snowflakes were whining about bullshit”
            ” Rewarding crybabies with coddling is not serving anyone”
            “Had these babies been in class learning something instead of being titty babies”
            “they have cheapened the apparent value of their classmate’s diplomas”

            All of that is pretty damn hyperbolic. Just as hyperbolic as claiming that freakin chalk on pavement threatens your personal safety. Or demanding that a university should denounce someone for using their first amendment rights. Every time the left does something unreasonable, people like you and members of the political right provide sentiment and analysis that is just as damn unreasonable as the unreasonable acts they are condemning!

            Try offering criticism that is devoid of character attacks and inflammatory language and instead focus on the logical fallacies and misguided actions made by these students. This event provides a great opportunity to teach these students about the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. That even though something may offend you, you don’t have a right not to be offended. Speech that marginalizes and demeans other groups is still protected speech, as hateful as it may be. We live in a country where the right of neo-nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood has been upheld by a federal court. That’s how extensive our freedom to speech is, and these students seem unable to grasp that. But when you call these students “cry babies” or or “little snowflakes” you COMPLETELY squander any chance to actually improve the situation or maybe lead some of these misguided students to change their views.

          2. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “But you wrote
            “These poor little snowflakes were whining about bullshit”
            ” Rewarding crybabies with coddling is not serving anyone”
            “Had these babies been in class learning something instead of being titty babies”
            “they have cheapened the apparent value of their classmate’s diplomas””

            Well, no, I didn’t. But go ahead…

            “Every time the left does something unreasonable, people like you and
            members of the political right provide sentiment and analysis that is
            just as damn unreasonable as the unreasonable acts they are condemning!”

            Nope. Making fun of people who went to the dean to complain about someone writing a candidates name in chalk isn’t unreasonable. As others have pointed out, people on the left are making fun of it too.

            Here’s the biggest thing that bothers me about the left: they really can’t laugh at themselves. Not even at the people who go way far past the line of being reasonable.
            And I’m not going to waste my time trying to get them to change their views. They are at college. If they are at this point of naive at college, I doubt that anything I say will change their POV.

          3. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            When supposed adults act like babies, they roundly deserve the derision they receive. THAT’S being devoid of character.

            And they have received it in abundance, nationally and globally.

            And they did it to themselves.

            Three facts.

            Try that in a real job and you’ll quickly find the unemployment line.

        2. Avatar
          John 3 years ago

          REALLY JP? Are you THAT stupid? I reckon so.

          No one is suppressing their right of free speech. They have deftly managed to sound the clarion call of pedantic whining upon the global stage. And now they’re paying the price. Good.

          They’re whining because someone spilled milk in their presence. Not even THEIR milk. HAHAHAHAHA!

          Poor little ninny-babies. Each and every one.

          You’re missing the ENTIRE point. You must be an Emory,er, I mean kindergarten student.

  8. Avatar
    ShadrachSmith 3 years ago

    Stupid is as Stupid does
    You protest Trump’s name in chalk on the sidewalk, and people laugh at you.
    Sounds fair to me 🙂

  9. Avatar
    sr1987 3 years ago

    I’m sorry but this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Nobody said they don’t have the right to protest, nobody called the cops on them to remove them. Sane people in media and the world are just reacting to it saying that it makes no sense and they’re cheapening the act of protesting because they’re protesting freakin chalk on a sidewalk for gods sake you idiots say that out loud again they are protesting chalk on a sidewalk!!! Marginalized? Oppressed? Really?? Stop it

    1. Avatar
      Red Ghost 3 years ago

      yeah they’re really “oppressed” attending that $60,000/year school and getting coddled like babies….lol

    2. Avatar
      Rose Hauser 3 years ago

      The complaint here is that the reaction by media outlets skewered protestors as coddled and misquoted multiple things while no one overexaggerated any of the stuff the trump chalkers said. So in comparison, it’s hypocritical to skewer one group for exercising that exact same right as being coddled. The protests weren’t even focused on chalk, they were focused on general racism that people of color at emory actually deal with. It’s not that hard to figure out.

      1. Avatar
        ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

        “So in comparison, it’s hypocritical to skewer one group for exercising that exact same right as being coddled.”

        Bzzt. Wrong.
        Excercising the “exact same” right would be if they wrote something in chalk next to the “Trump 2016” markings.
        That’s not what they did. They claimed “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” by those words, which led everyone to call them special snowflakes.
        If you reach into the fridge and grab milk, find out that we’re out of milk, and then fall to the ground and begin to cry “whhhhhy…. whyyyyyyyy!”, you are over-reacting.
        That’s what this is about.
        A group of students freaking out, and being made fun of for freaking out.

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          the right in question is freedom of speech, it was just done through different means. So yeah breh, it was the same right. To quote you: Bzzt. wrong.
          Yeah, they claimed the administration doesn’t listen when people of color try to bring up racist things, which they have a history of doing. You’d probably actually understand that if you went to the school. It’s not that hard.

          1. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            No one is suppressing their right of free speech. They have deftly managed to sound the clarion call of pedantic whining upon the global stage.

            And now they’re paying the price. Good.

          2. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I never made the claim that it was being suppressed. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said the hypocrisy lies in chastising one group for free speech while defending another for doing the same thing.

          3. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            You spake thusly: “the right in question is freedom of speech, it was just done through different means.”

            Hmmm… sure sounds like it.

            And don’t be surprised when people ridicule whining from supposed adults.

            You’re free to defend them if you wish. They’re free to be childish if they wish. And I am also free to laugh at them.

          4. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Stop quoting out of context mate, it doesn’t help you.
            The right BOTH sides are exercising is freedom of speech. it’s not being suppressed by either. One exercised it through chalk. one exercised it through protest. Only one side was skewered for it.

            Again, get a grip.

          5. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            These kids will get a grip when they’re passed over by potential employers because they are whiners. And they’ll get a grip of reality when their boss tells them to perform or be fired.

          6. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “The right BOTH sides are exercising is freedom of speech. it’s not being
            suppressed by either. One exercised it through chalk. one exercised it
            through protest.”

            Well, no. One side was exercising their freedom of speech.
            The other side was complaining about their freedom of speech.

          7. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “the right in question is freedom of speech, it was just done through different means.”

            Well, no. They went to the Dean of students to try to get something done about the fact that someone HAD freedom of speech.
            True/false?
            And no…. I wouldn’t understand if someone told me that “Trump 2016” is racist. They’re being hyperbolic, and repressive.

          8. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            False, actually.

            What you’re not understanding is that the protesting was NEVER FOCUSED ON THE CHALK. The students never asked the Dean to go spray down the chalk. They were trying to talk to JWags about the general racist attitudes they experience at emory and that this was part of it.

            Again, you’d actually know ANY of this stuff if you were actually a part of the student body.

          9. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “What you’re not understanding is that the protesting was NEVER FOCUSED ON THE CHALK.”

            From the original article on the protest:
            ““I’m supposed to feel comfortable and
            safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by
            students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their
            silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my
            school,” she added.”

            Did you ever read the article, Rose?
            Or are you telling me that the Emory Wheel made up all of those quotes?

          10. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Again, chalk isn’t the focus. The student’s safety is. And guess what? That stems from several racist issues that have happened at the school. The chalk was just the final straw. But the chalk itself is NEVER the cause of the pain. the racist atmosphere is. They didn’t make the quotes up, your just only have half the picture here.

            I go to the school, mate. I’m more aware of the situation than you can hope to be. Hence why stupid whining about how coddled a student body is is annoying.

          11. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Because these children were doing the “stupid whining”.

            They’re offended by an opinion someone else expressed and everyone is supposed to give them “safe spaces”?

            If that’s not pedantic, I don’t know what is. Seems the vast majority of people who live in the real world agree.

          12. Avatar
            Random Ami 3 years ago

            Again explain to me, how writing “trump 2016” with a chalk is an “act of war” or racism. Imagine if I started crying every time I saw the word “Sanders” written wherever, just because I consider socialism a repressive system.

            You say that the protesters are the ones being denied their freedom of speech, but they aren’t. It’s this stupidity of calling everything “microagression” these days, what is the source of all the mockery. The snowflakes decide on their own to give “their own” interpretation to everything,therefore, EVERYTHING IS now considered a threat. Even “America is the land of opportunity” (ROFL)

            It’s the eternal whining about everything, not just this case,but it has become a de facto rule is most colleges. It’s the making connections of non connected events and then go whining to their deans because “our safety is at risk”.

            Then you ask them, how come? Why? Did someone threaten to kill you? No, boo boo..,they wrote the world Trump!

            That’s what that student say “I deserve to feel safe”…Erm nope. If by safe you mean shutting down dissent even if no harm is done, is not “safety” what you deserve, is a good spanking.

            Said that, when did colleges and universities became some kind of psychological counseling centers? I remember the places used to be learning centers to transfer knowledge from elders to youngster to prepare them for careers like medicine, engineering, etc. do they still teach that or all classes has degraded to gender and diversity “studies”. More importantly what those kids are going to do in real life with that stuff?

          13. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Watch out, Ami.

            She’ll go running to a moderator because she’s “offended”!

            HA!

          14. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Never once said their freedom of speech was getting denied. Nor did I say it was an act of war. That’s about all I read from you. That’s all I’m gonna read too. If you won’t read what I said and make up positions I never had, I’m not reading what you say either.

      2. Avatar
        Coincidence 3 years ago

        In this very article I just read “one of the protesters clarified that what they want is for the University to acknowledge the pain caused to many students by the
        chalking”.

        1. Avatar
          John 3 years ago

          Indeed. Crybabies they are. And they are unfortunately future voters with a woefully inadequate education in civics OR history.

          They can’t answer basic questions about our government or the Constitution but can instantly name all the Kardashians.

          I guess we see what’s really important to them.

  10. Avatar
    Random Ami 3 years ago

    They can protest all they want. They can erase it the chalking and write Sanders instead.

    What is being discussed here is the asymmetry of the complain. I couldn’t count, even if I wanted to, the many times I’ve seen, heard, be told things that may have caused some discomfort in me. I’m immigrant and with an accent. The thousands of times I’ve been asked where I’m from. The number of times, I as a republican had to swallow all the mockery,ridiculing, and despicable portraiting of republican politicians (bush like hitter or satan), etc.

    And what did I do? Did I go whining to the world because, oh the tragedy, my “feelings are hurt”? No. I either ignored it, or responded in kind when I saw fit, and then I moved on with my life. But in all cases, I knew that keeping FREEDOM OF SPEECH was by far more important in the overall than my weaky feelings hurt.

    Beside about this microagression stupidity I find it infantile that people automatically assume that anything said to them has some dark ulterior motive; like if life revolved only around them…the chalkings couldn’t just be a trump supporter enthus…nope. It had to be with the darker motive of “microagressing the snowflakes and making them cry”.

    In this Emory case, is the cowardy, the fussiness, the stupidity of the argument that is being subject of all the well deserved mockery.

  11. Avatar
    Red Ghost 3 years ago

    You have the right to expose yourself as the puzzies that you are. And we have the right to mock you relentlessly for it. See? We agree more than disagree.

    Oh, and…

    TRUMP 2016!

    1. Avatar
      Rose Hauser 3 years ago

      Request a flag for a moderator, this idiot obviously either doesn’t go to Emory in the first place and has contributed nothing of value while throwing baseless insults around like a child.

      1. Avatar
        jon stor 3 years ago

        Why? Because he doesn’t agree with you?

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          You….you can read right?

          “contributed nothing of value and is throwing baseless insults around like a child”

          He can be a moron all he wants, but this is a discussion where people act like adults. he can go be a brat somewhere else.

          1. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            You’re free to ignore him.

          2. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Right. I can. I’m just doing a service by getting someone to show him the door. Notice how I said request as opposed to command.

          3. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Either way, it’s an effort to suppress.

            As is typical, you don’t want to command it yourself…. you’re asking someone else to do it for you.

            Hmmm… you’re losing points here. Quickly.

            You must be one of those whining Emory students.

          4. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Yeah, to suppress someone who’s insulting people and not contributing anything useful. You know, the exact same ruled used on reddit, facebook, and any moderated forum. You must be real new to this, eh?

            Of course I don’t command it, that would be acting authoritarian, which is what you’re implying I’m somehow doing. Get a grip.

          5. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            You cannot see the forest for the trees.

            You’re acting as the arbiter of speech, judge, jury and calling for the executioner because “you don’t have the muscle”.

            Who are you to decide what is “useful” and somehow decide for everyone else? What gives you that right?

            You rest my case.

          6. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Nice edited post mate. I never said anything about how I was ignoring him. I only said I did in fact have that option.

            Ah yes, because requesting a mod to actally do their job and moderate a forum is comparable to Communism and Nazism. You’re beyond mentally inept.

            Your point was never about how liberals are totalitarians, you just went back and edited yur messages and changed it. that’s one heck of a red herring mate.

            Ah, so you’re not an emory student. Thought so. You really have no grip on this situation outside of Feaux news spoon feeding you, right? Get oit of here. You’re pathetic.

          7. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            But you suggest you could. As if you would. Then you don’t.

            And this does not negate the fact you’re being authoritarian. Not in the least. You, like those other babies who don’t like what they see – so you call for muscle… just like Mx. Click. If you’re that offended, you’re free to leave the forum just like everyone else. Grow up.

            No one mentioned communism or Nazism. You did. Was that a Freudian slip?

            You ARE authoritarian. You ARE actively working to get someone you don’t agree with removed. Just because others do it does not mean they do it here. Nor should they. Just ONE post by this other guy and you go running to someone for help. Yep, an Emory student for sure.

            No, I’m proud to say I didn’t go to your kindergarten.

            Again, let me fill you in snowflake. You’re in for one really big shock in life when you get out of your crib and get a job (if you can) in the real world.. The internet and the world are really big places. There’s no such thing as “safe spaces” in the real world.

          8. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Yeah, I don’t agree with him, but that’s not why he should be removed. he should be removed because he’s spamming. How is that so hard for you to understand? Randomly spewing obscenities contributes nothing. That’s why I requested a removal. Totalitarian would be removing him solely because I disagreed with him. You’re doing a fallacy called equivocation, if you can even understand what that means.

            Right, mate. So maybe since you’re so grown up and all you could understand that maybe you were mislead about some of it?? Because you know, unlike you, I was actually there?? How is that so hard for mr. grown up to do, eh?

            Nice ad hominem, but since you’re pretty much admitting you have nothing to go on and have half the info, you’re making an a$$ out of yourself. Just calm down and go back inside your head mr. grown up. At least then the rest of the world can move on without you.

          9. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            The only one here being pedantic is you snowflake.

            You’ll learn someday, if you ever grow up and toughen up your feelings. It’s the world who will move on without YOU because you don’t know how to deal with it.

            Clearly, you’re not equipped. And it is clear to everyone but you.

          10. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Are you sure? You’re the one who’s apparently getting mad because you got roasted for talking out your a$$.

            It’s honestly kind of sad.

            Oh, and by the way, a Freudian slip would be letting something loose that no one knows but you. Everyone (except you, apparently) knows that Stalinism and Nazism are prime examples of totalitarianism.

            Have fun editing your comments and throwing baseless insults, big boy. it just shows you’re not willing to stand by anything you say. Again, pathetic.

          11. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            I stand by everything I say observing this nonsense. Nothing you can ever say (because you’re incapable of defending yourself when you act like a child with your little feelings all hurt and all) will erase the facts I’ve stated.

            Good luck with your future. You’re going to need it. Your parents are wasting their money on your “education” because you’re learning nothing.

            Done with you.

          12. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Lol, no facts were presented by you. No statistics, faulty logic, fallacy after fallacy, edited everything, and now you’re trying to dip out because you have nothing left. You’re right nothing can change the facts you stated. because you didn’t state any.

            Honestly mate, from what I’ve seen, I’m not the one who needs help with my future. But sure, I’ll take it from you. I’m already on the way to being a chemical engineer. Can’t wait to use my apparent authoritarian ideas when I ask to check your numbers. 😉

          13. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Nice edit again by adding those last two sentences. At least you’re consistent. It almost makes you sound commanding. Almost.

            I don’t pay anything to go here. unlike you, I was able to earn grant money for my education. You probably would too if you could pass a basic reasoning test.

            Good riddance. Go back to yor Feaux news hole.

          14. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Oh look, you added a sentence at the beginning too. Man, you should hire a clerk to keep track of all those edits. Wouldn’t want someone to think you’re wishy washy eh?

          15. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Are you sure? You’re the one who’s apparently getting mad because you got roasted for talking out your a$$.”

            Are you genuinely in college?

          16. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “You really have no grip on this situation outside of Feaux news spoon feeding you, right?”

            Why is that always the talking point?
            Its as if the left never met a conservative, before Fox News came along?

          17. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            It could be any news outlet with a ridiculous bias, even CNN or the Daily Mail. But since he’s talking about liberal conspiracies, he’s statistically more likely to be watching FNC.

            Plus, it wasn’t the taking point. The whole point is that he has half the info but acts like he knows everything, and instead of understanding he might have been wrong, he whines about it.

          18. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            ” The whole point is that he has half the info but acts like he knows
            everything, and instead of understanding he might have been wrong, he
            whines about it.”

            I find that ironic from the person who will neither admit that the Snopes article was inaccurate, nor will you back off the fact that the Nature article said that Britannica was more accurate than Wikipedia.
            And you’re not using any other news outlet. You’re aiming at “Feaux”. Which either means that you have a spelling impediment, or a name-calling reaction to things you don’t like.

          19. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            The snopes article wasn’t inaccurate. It was a mostly false situation and it reported as such. If anything YOU’RE the one that needs more proof because you never empirically proved a bias that supposedly discredits it.

            I can’t even find the wiki thread anymore because of how bloated the comments are, And Nature didn’t say Britannica was more accurate. It said that out of its sample Britannica at best was AS accurate as Wikipedia in terms of errors, even after Britannica filed for a review of the original findings which indicated it was MORE accurate. The sad thing is, even if Nature had said Britannica was more accurate, it wouldn’t matter because it would have been by about 0.5% of the articles. Both sources have a reliability of around 95% (or 97 if I recall, been awhile since I read that one).

            I can use another one, He’s just acting like a Feaux news watcher. it could be any other kind. Notice how I only use the Feaux thing to refer to him, and only once he started going on a bullshit tirade about a left-wing conspiracy when it was completely irrelevant?

          20. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            ” If anything YOU’RE the one that needs more proof because you never empirically proved a bias that supposedly discredits it.”

            SNOPES:
            FALSE: “students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.”

            Of course, that’s completely destroyed by the Emory Wheel article. Students did say that they were afraid and traumatized:
            The article:
            —“You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” —
            —“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and
            safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by
            students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their
            silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my
            school,” she added.—-
            —“What are we feeling?” Peraza asked those assembled. Responses of “frustration” and “fear” came from around the room….—

            From the Snopes article:
            FALSE:
            “Emory students complained that their “safe spaces” had been violated”

            From the Emory Wheel article:
            ““[Faculty] are supporting this rhetoric
            by not ending it,” said one student, who went on to say that “people of
            color are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying
            to have a safe community and focus on these issues [related to having
            safe spaces on campus].””

            Those are two points that the Snopes article said were false, that were supported in the Emory Wheel article as being true.
            What say you now?

            RE: Wikipedia…. from the Nature study:
            “They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or
            misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while
            Britannica had 123.
            That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.”

            An extra mistake per article is significant.
            Maybe not if you’re a college student…

          21. Avatar
            Steve C 3 years ago

            I would add to this that Wagner’s own letter following his meeting with the protesters described them expressing feeling of genuine pain. So there is another very legitimate source that contradicts the snopes article.

          22. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Here’s the thing:
            I get why people who DON’T read the Emory articles or follow what’s been going on might believe that Snopes was right.
            But I don’t get how people who have actually been reading the articles or live at Emory could believe that the statements that Snopes listed as false… were.

          23. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Yes, the PROTESTERS complained about those things. The thing I’m trying to explain here is that the majority of Emory’s students weren’t affected by it. Literally almost everyone laughed it off. Heck, I thought it was just a bad joke until the crap about “building a wall” was everywhere. That’s what the snopes article is referring to. That’s the thing, neither of us are wrong here. The protesters felt that way, but they’re 40 students out of the 5,000 or so in the student population, which is what the snopes article is talking about.

            Apparently it isn’t very significant, since if you read to the end you’d remember that both Britannica and Wikipedia’s consistencies are still at 95% each. The amount of mistakes per article is extremely low, hence why it was still so consistent for both sides. If anything, Wikipedia is probably more accurate now because unlike Britannica, it gets edited and changed on an article by article basis as events happen, whereas Britannica has to print an entire new edition.

          24. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Rose, you have a remarkable way of racing past what someone wrote.
            True/false:
            “Emory students complained that their “safe spaces” had been violated”

            True/false:
            “students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.”

            Both of these statements were corroborated by the Emory Wheel article. Yet, Snopes called them false.
            Why are you racing past that?

            ” That’s the thing, neither of us are wrong here. ”

            SNOPES IS WRONG. Why can you not just admit that? Are you so attached to your statement that snopes was right that youc an’t admit that it was wrong? And no… Snopes didn’t argue that the ENTIRE student population didn’t protest. So let’s stop being pedantic.

            I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the “consistencies” are 95%? Where are you pulling that number from?
            Britannica responded to this:
            http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

            The Nature study was shoddy by all accounts. But even then, its undeniable that even by Nature’s own study, Wikipedia is less reliable. Which makes sense. Wikipedia doesn’t have one single editor who is responsible for making sure its true.
            What you’re left with is a group of people who may not be experts, but are passionate. Which is why there are some articles that have to be “frozen” to keep the passionate nutbags from editing the crap out of them. That doesn’t stop the passionate nutbags from editing other articles… which is why there are so many genuinely dumb things inside of Wikipedia articles.
            You go to college.
            Stop defending Wikipedia as a source.
            I’m fairly certain your instructors will not count it as a real source.

          25. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Notice how I only use the Feaux thing to refer to him…”

            I don’t care if you refer to it when talking to a tree. Its intellectually laziness, and really dumb name calling.

          26. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Maybe, just for once, you could finish the quotation?
            “…to refer to him, AND ONLY ONCE HE STARTED GOING ON A BULLSHIT TIRADE ABOUT A LEFT WING CONSPIRACY…”

            If he’s taking the ultimate road of laziness by acting like everything is a conspiracy, I’m not wasting my time or energy on it. Neither would you. Give it a rest.

          27. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Rose, you’re not actually reading my posts anymore. Its not necessary for me to quote your entire sentence when I’m pointing out:
            “I don’t care if you refer to it when talking to a tree. Its intellectually laziness, and really dumb name calling.”

          28. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Despite what you’re claiming, I always read them.
            What you’re not understanding is that you DO have to quote everything that is RELEVANT to the point being made. Nearly all the points you make have literally left off entire sentences that would answer the questions you pose to me.

            You can call it lazy if you want, but he did the same thing before I did. I’m not giving someone who rants about liberal cospiracies (without proof, no less) and whines the time of day, and neither should you. But at least if you do, make sure you read the sentences around what you want to quote. you’d probably answer your own question.

          29. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “What you’re not understanding is that you DO have to quote everything that is RELEVANT to the point being made.”

            no… its not relevant to point out that you *have a reason* for using the phrase “Feaux News” when I feel that its intellectually laziness, and really dumb name calling. Your reasons do not make it less lazy or dumb.

          30. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            I, unlike you in your cushy ivory tower, HAVE a grip.

            I have worked in the real world for over thirty years as an engineer. I know what the real world is like and I don’t depend upon coddlers to comfort me when I’m offended.

            I deal with it on my own.

          31. Avatar
            Mike678 3 years ago

            Hmmm. Insults. Does that make you a hypocrite?

          32. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Unlike a hypocrite, I never claimed to never insult people. So no, it doesn’t. Go read a dictionary.

          33. Avatar
            jon stor 3 years ago

            Freedom of expression. He can say whatever he wants unless it’s hate speech or threats.

            And you just insulted me. Just because I am Asian does not mean I can not read English. You have violated my safe space. I demand President Obama to come out and denounce your blatant racism. I also demand financial compensation from Emory’s emergency safe space violation funds.

            The irony of you social justice warriors is that you are blinded by your own racism.

          34. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            So true, Jon. So true.

          35. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Ah yes, because carpet statements of how emory students are p****ies and calling them liberals and then insulting aforementioned liberals could NEVER be interpreted as hate speech. Give it a rest.

            I asked if you could read because you asked why I requested one even though I gave the reason in my response. You being Asian had nothing to do with it. That was your lack of reading comprehension and nothing else. Not my fault.

            Since you don’t know what you’re talking about (safe space funds? Sure bud) I’m not humoring it.

            I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take being an sjw to understand being an idiot in a college newspaper forum isn’t appropriate, but go ahead mate. I’ll just go back to listening to Eminem and DMX.

          36. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            I’m really hoping that last sentence was satire.

          37. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            It was, though the joke’s wasted on him.

          38. Avatar
            Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

            is throwing baseless insults around like a child

            He can be a moron all he wants

            Both comments written by them same person only an hour apart.

          39. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “He can be a moron all he wants, but this is a discussion where people act like adults. He can go be a brat somewhere else.”

            Don’t quote out of context. It makes you look like a moron.

          40. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Juxtaposing two opposing things that you say isn’t quoting you out of context. Its pointing out that you’re being hypocritical.

          41. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            It is when you ignore one of the points, thus curtailing the argument, and criticize the result. It’s also sometimes known as a straw man.
            Try again.

          42. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            A straw man argument is when you argue something that the person is not arguing. They quoted the two different opposing things you said that disagree with each other. That’s not a strawman arguement.
            I think you don’t get what a strawman argument is.

          43. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “A straw man argument is when you argue something the person is not arguing”

            No, it isn’t. a straw man is where Person B simplifies a position of person A by dumbing it down, then person B makes fun of the new, weaker argument as a counter to person A.

            I also never said that person was comitting the straw man, I said you were.

            Again, you’re glossing over, not reading. If anything it seems like you don’t know what a straw man is.

          44. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “In its simplest definition, straw man is the name of a logical
            fallacy, which means that if you carefully dissect the argument or
            statement, it doesn’t make sense. Debaters invoke a straw man when they
            put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue
            against—that they know their opponent doesn’t support. You put forth a
            straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or
            discredit. It’s a way of misrepresenting your opponent’s position”
            http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argument

            You wrote that a straw man argument is the process of dumbing down an opponents argument. It is not. Otherwise, anyone trying to simplify someone’s argument would be making a strawman arguement.
            The key part of a strawman argument is that you’re changing the argument of the person making the point.
            You genuinely don’t know what a strawman is, apparently.

          45. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Yeah, that’s basically what I said. You’re being semantical. By dumbing down an argument in a straw man, you conveniently ignore important parts of the argument, set that up as the argument, then attack the result. I didn’t explain that part because I figured you already knew that. If I have to treat you like you have no idea what any fallacy is, then you’re the one who doesn’t understand what a straw man is.

          46. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            No, dude. A straw man isn’t dumbing down an argument.
            Its changing it into something the person never said.
            There is a difference.
            Go. Look it up. Don’t trust me. Ask any one of your teachers, please.
            Simply rewording your argument doesn’t make it a strawman. CHANGING it does, so that someone is able to argue with something that you never actually said.

          47. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “In doing so, the point changes because by ignoring parts of it you’re arguing something different from what the intended point was.”

            Already said this, you just didn’t notice it. We’re on the same page on what it was. We just explained it with different terms, then you acted like I didn’t know what it was by arguing semantics. Just give it a rest.

          48. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “No, it isn’t. a straw man is where Person B simplifies a position of
            person A by dumbing it down, then person B makes fun of the new, weaker
            argument as a counter to person A.”

            That was your argument. It has nothing to do with dumbing the argument down. It has to do with changing it.
            I’m so done with this.

          49. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “Person B makes fun of the NEW, WEAKER argument as a counter”

            How exactly did you think it was new? They changed the point. I already explained this when I explained what I meant by dumbing down in this case. Stop arguing semantics when we literally said the same thing.

          50. Avatar
            Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

            is throwing baseless insults around like a child

            He can be a moron all he wants, but this is a discussion where people act like adults. he can go be a brat somewhere else.

            Both comments written by them same person only an hour apart.

          51. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “He can be a moron all he wants, but this is a discussion where people act like adults.”

            You are the same person who used the term “Faeux News”. yes?

          52. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Yes, in response to someone going on a conspiracy tirade. Again, quoting outing of context.

      2. Avatar
        John 3 years ago

        WHAAAAAHHH! I need a MODERATOR! We need some MUSCLE over here!
        I’m offended because I read something I didn’t like and he didn’t meet my standards! I want this guy REMOVED (see posts below) from this forum because he’s not contributing anything “useful” and I’m scared!”

        Did I get this right?

        Yeah, I thought so.

        Let me fill you in, snowflake. The internet is a big place. So is the world. Better get used to it.

  12. Avatar
    Red Ghost 3 years ago

    This blow-back is well deserved and has been building up for a long time…everyone is sick of liberal whiners….this isn’t to say that liberals don’t have the right to whine (they do), but the repercussions of said whining are going to be fast and furious from now on.

  13. Avatar
    Caleb Powell 3 years ago

    You make a point, an absurd point, but a point, nevertheless.

    Of course “we” support the rights of the students and chalkers to speak, but you’ve invented an argument that there’s hypocrisy.

    Both the Regressive Student Snowflakes, just as Trump Supporters, have a right to speak. No one is taking that away from them. But the Students do not have a right to be agreed with, to have their “feelings” acknowledged, or anything given to them except their right to speak. They don’t even have the right to be heard. They can broadcast, and we have a right to tune them out. And if someone writes “Trump,” they have the same right to listen or not.

    And if they don’t like Trump, they can engage and articulate why.

    But, for the way they have acted, they should be mocked without compunction. There’s no double standard, just one standard, one where these students show regressive and feeble ability to counter.

    Trump is awful, but so are these students, and they deserve one another.

    1. Avatar
      Bob 3 years ago

      Excellent reply. Well said.

  14. Avatar
    blindbreath 3 years ago

    Nice mention of how the Editor-in-Chief who disagrees with you does not represent the Wheel, but no mention of you yourself not representing the organization.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Yeah, I noticed that too.

      If the Editor-in-Chief doesn’t represent the newspaper, just who DOES?

    2. Avatar
      Rose Hauser 3 years ago

      That’s because anyone with basic reasoning skills could deduce that if the editor in chief doesn’t represent the wheel in its entirety, an opinion piece by a student obviously wouldn’t either.

      1. Avatar
        ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

        Actually, by the fact that the EIC is in charge of the paper, they do represent the entirety of the paper. Particularly when it comes to what is printed.
        Literally nothing gets printed without the EIC’s approval.

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          Then tell that to Blindbreath, not me. They’re the one that said it.

      2. Avatar
        Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

        anyone with basic reasoning skills

        You know Rose, smugness is a stinky perfume.

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          So is flooding a comment section on a college journal with idiocy when you don’t even go to the school.

          1. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            So is going apoplectic when someone writes “Trump 2016” on the sidewalk or stairs in a public college.
            I can’t fathom how those college students will deal with life once they leave the cocoon of their college and find out that not only are there millions of people who want to vote for Trump, but they aren’t the actual devil.

          2. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Lol, there are so many things wrong with that statement it doesn’t make sense.
            1. I’m not an apologist. I just don’t like people who don’t even go here acting like they know the school better than a student does and whining about it.
            2. Emory isn’t a public college, it’s a private university
            3. You can’t chalk anywhere you want. You need to go to college council and get chalking permits for specific areas.

            You know, if you actually went here, I wouldn’t have to explain something so basic about the school. You’re also still stuck on “trump 2016” being the concern as opposed to “build the wall”

          3. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “1. I’m not an apologist.”

            Uhm.

            You don’t know what apoplectic is. Do you?

            You’re back to arguing that its not about the chalking… but its about the chalking. No one said it was a public college.

          4. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Umm, you don’t know what an apologist is, do you?
            An apologist is someone like Paul from the bible. someone who defends the name of something in the name of something else. I just respond to stupidity by countering t because stupidity doesn’t have a place in a discussion about race or racial issues at Emory.

            Note how nowhere in that last post did I say it was or was not about the chalking. I just clarified that you can’t chalk anywhere you want because college council must approve it first.

            “So is going apologetic when someone writes ‘trump 2016’ on the sidewalk or stairs in a public college”

            Uh, yeah dude, ya did.

          5. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “1. I’m not an apologist. I just don’t like people who don’t even go here
            acting like they know the school better than a student does and whining
            about it.”

            Where did this statement come from? I never accused you of being an apologist. What were you responding to?

          6. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “so is going apologetic”

            Someone who “goes apologetic” is usually called an “apologist”. Because they are apologetic.

          7. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Rose,
            You are NOT READING what I wrote.
            Apoplectic.
            Not apolegetic.

            This is where you avoid admitting that you’re wrong, again.

          8. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Ah, okay. I thought that was a typo the second time. My bad. I was wrong about that. apoplectic is just being angry though, and I’m not angry. The protesters are, but I’m not.

            I don’t have any problem admitting I’m wrong, because everyone is from time to time. If anything, you’re the only one who hasn’t admitted they’re wrong. What was that about not saying it was a public college?

          9. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            When did I ever suggest that the college was a public college???
            Rose, I never wrote that YOU were apoplectic.
            Apparently, I have to copy and paste my own words at this point:
            “So is going apoplectic when someone writes “Trump 2016″ on the sidewalk or stairs in a public college.
            I
            can’t fathom how those college students will deal with life once they
            leave the cocoon of their college and find out that not only are there
            millions of people who want to vote for Trump, but they aren’t the
            actual devil.”

            And you DO have a problem admitting when you’re wrong… as evidenced with the Snopes article, and with Wikipedia/Nature article. You still won’t admit that Wikipedia has more errors, and you pulled out this weird 95% “right” thing. Which seems to be made up.

          10. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “So is going apoplectic when someone writes ‘trump 2016’ on the sidewalk or stairs in a public college”

            Did you just forget you wrote this, or what?

            Yeah, I know you didn’t. I was just clarifying that. That’s why I said the protesters were. We’re not in disagreement here.

            Dude, I already explained the difference between what you’re thinking snopes means by “students” (you’re thinking it means the protesters) and what it was actually referring to (the student body as a whole). I can’t even find that thread anymore though.

            Also, the 95% is from within the nature article itself (if memory serves). If anything you never provided a reason for why the article would be shoddy as you claimed. Nature is a peer reviewed publication for a reason.

          11. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Rose, you’re right. I wrote public college. I shouldn’t have written public college, when I meant a public space in the college.

            “Dude, I already explained the difference between what you’re thinking
            snopes means by “students” (you’re thinking it means the protesters) and
            what it was actually referring to (the student body as a whole)”

            Would you please link me to the part where Snopes makes that distinction?
            Here is SNOPES:
            http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

            The actual Nature article is behind a paywall. Can I presume you paid for the study, then, in order to read it?
            I already provided Britannica’s case, which is compelling. But if you want more, go to the supplemental that Nature provides:

            “… 42 useable reviews were returned. The reviews
            were then examined by Nature’s news team and the total number
            of errors estimated for each article.
            In doing so, we sometimes disregarded items that our reviewers had identified as errors or critical omissions. In particular, as we were interested in testing the entries from the point of view of ‘typical encyclopaedia users’, we felt that experts in the field might sometimes cite omissions as critical when in fact they probably weren’t – at least for a general understanding of the topic. Likewise, the ‘errors’ identified
            sometimes strayed into merely being badly phrased – so we ignored
            these unless they significantly hindered understanding.”

            So there was a ton of judgement involved on the part of Nature. they decided to “disregard” items that their reviewers identified as errors. Neat.
            Peer Reviewed is the laziest defense of a report on the planet.

  15. Avatar
    coachTj 3 years ago

    Excellent article unfortunately many readers seem to have either missed the message or ignored it.

    1. Avatar
      ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

      Oh, trust me… we get it.
      The author thinks that his over-reaction of going to the Dean and complaining about someone’s freedom of speech is the same as freedom of speech.
      It is not.
      He (and his cohorts) said that they felt hurt and threatened by someone writing a candidates name in chalk. They are absurd. People are making fun of that absurdity. No one has told them that they cannot speak. Not one person.

    2. Avatar
      Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

      Excellent article unfortunately many readers seem to have either missed the message or ignored it disagree with me and should be silenced.

      FTFY

  16. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    No one has told the protestors that they need to be quiet.
    An equal reaction would be if they wrote chalk markings next to those already made, and wrote “no Trump!” or more likely “Sanders 2016”
    By going to the Dean (???) and complaining that “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”, you (generic you) became that whining person who – upon finding out that they don’t have cell phone coverage – screams in pain and falls to the floor and yells “why me? Whyyyy me???”
    The sad part is that you don’t grasp this.
    You believe that being called out on your over-reaction is hypocrisy of freedom of speech. No, its just more freedom of speech. No one said that when you make a ridiculous argument, someone can’t call you out on it. Or that if you freak out because you found out that someone might endorse a political candidate that you find personally repulsive (that never, ever, ever happens in politics), that going to your Dean might be something worthy of being made fun of.
    Let me help you out. Here are a few other things that people might make fun of you for going to the Dean and complaining about:
    * My instructor exposed me to a point of view that I genuinely didn’t like
    * While driving today, I noticed bumper stickers that support the 2nd amendment
    * Not all of the food in the cafeteria is gluten free
    * The washrooms in our college are still marked “men” and “women”
    * I went to the Subways near me, and asked for extra meat. They told me that they would charge me extra for more meat.
    * When I go up an escalator, frequently, other people will not stand to the right so that I can walk past them

    The world is a tough place. I encourage you to talk to at least one other human being that does not have the same political POV as you. I must warn you, this may result in an argument. Someone may belittle you.
    This does not mean that anyone is stopping your freedom of speech.
    Welcome to freedom of speech.

  17. Avatar
    coachTj 3 years ago

    What the Emory students collectively have exposed is how the media will create a LIE and then continually reference that lie to frame the story. Emory, as a communuty, should fight back.
    . Expose the lying/bullying media.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      “It’s all a vast right-wing conspiracy.” – Hillary Clinton

      Additionally, what I find very interesting is that a LOT of liberals posting on Disqus seem to have hidden profiles. Veeerrryyyy interesting.

  18. Avatar
    ThirteenthLetter 3 years ago

    For someone who emigrated from a Communist country and should theoretically have a better understanding of these things, you don’t have a very solid understanding of the point at all. No one is saying that the students can’t protest against the evil of “Trump 2016” written in chalk on a sidewalk. They’re just criticizing the students, much as the students are criticizing the chalker. And you, of course, can criticize the people who are criticizing, and so forth. As long as people aren’t being fired from their jobs or uninvited from conferences or something as a consequence, even the spirit of free speech doesn’t enter into it at all, much less the legal principle.

  19. Avatar
    RGnome 3 years ago

    Anh Duy Nguyen, you made an error in your concluding paragraph. “we must be as willing to support the protesters and to listen to their voices as we are willing to support the right of the chalkers”. This is untrue. The support of the right of the chalkers is a support of their free speech rights. Support of the protester’s free speech rights does not require that we support the protester’s views or even listen to them. My reading of the comments on this issue don’t show a difference in the support for the free speech rights of the chalkers and the protesters. The commenters aren’t saying that the protesters don’t have the right to protest, they’re saying that they disagree with the actions or views of the protesters.

    Threats of violence are wrong and illegal. You will find few people who support them. But your view that there has been a violation of the right of students to voice outrage seems largely based on the fact that these students have faced overwhelming disagreement, even insults. The protesters weren’t shut down, they were disagreed with. That isn’t a violation of the student’s right to protest, that is the private opinion (apparently also public opinion) of individual people. They are the same as the protesters. They are people with an opinion. They are equivalent. You would be as wrong to deny them their opinion as you would be to deny the protester’s their opinion.

    No one has a right to win in the court of public opinion. I made a comment earlier as to why I disagree with the protesters http://emorywheel.com/22419-2/ I certainly think they had a right to act as they did but I also think that they overreacted and suggested some illiberal steps. The only power I expect to have over the protesters is the power to persuade. What other power do you think that I have over them?

    I certainly didn’t suggest that the protesters restrict their expression to quiet conversations in tiny rooms. I expressed my support for them to protest and take political action to further their views. But I still disagreed with the action that they did take. And when I said that they threatened free speech (made some authoritarian suggestions) it was because they did threaten free speech, not because they exercised their own rights.

    Support for censorship (for using the power of the university to silence views) “[Faculty] are supporting this rhetoric by not ending it,”

    Compelling speech (forcing someone to support beliefs or take expressive actions that are inconsistent with their viewpoints): “decry the support for this fascist, racist candidate”

    Compelling speech: “How can you not [disavow Trump] when Trump’s platform and his values undermine Emory’s values that I believe are diversity and inclusivity when they are obviously not [something that Trump supports]”

    If the protesters want to back away from these statements they have my approval. I don’t think they should have made them to begin with.

    I have read a lot of comments about this case. I haven’t seen any threats (unless you consider calls for people to not hire Emory grads a threat). And I disagree with anyone who did make threats.

    The marjority of commenters on this issue don’t seem to be offering support to the chalker. And they aren’t calling for the protesters to be silenced. They do think that the protesters overreacted. Commenters and pundits aren’t the university, they don’t have power over the students daily lives. They have opinions, just like the protesters do. They are expressing them, just like the protesters did. They aren’t trying to silence the protesters and don’t have the power to do so anyway.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Well said. You nailed it.

      But I seriously doubt that some here will even begin to comprehend what you wrote. Unfortunately, they’re apparently incapable.

  20. Avatar
    moops 3 years ago

    The University has become a laughing stock around the nation.

  21. Avatar
    Bob 3 years ago

    65 Pakistani Christians killed and hundreds more injured on Easter Day by Muslim extremists. Not sure you should count Muslims among the marginalized while they commit Christian genocide in the Middle East.

  22. Avatar
    DaDawggss 3 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpgRqVixCg

    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/te5i2g/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore-babies-on-campus—donald-trump-graffiti-freak-out

    Bill Maher, and even Comedy Centrals Larry Willmore
    laughed at Emory students
    These so called protesters made the entire Emory population look like helpless crybabies and still whines about it..

    It is sickening.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Sometimes even raving liberals can see blatant stupidity.

      This is the best (sadly the worst) example of vapid, childish behavior by college “students” I’ve ever seen.

  23. Avatar
    Bob 3 years ago

    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/te5i2g/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore-babies-on-campus—donald-trump-graffiti-freak-out

    When the Larry Wilmore show calls out Emory students for being over-sensitive crybabies or admin manipulators… Lol!

  24. Avatar
    John 3 years ago

    It’s amazing.

    Maybe if some Emory students spent more time going to class and doing some actual STUDYING instead of trying to peddle their liberal, incoherent and pedantic nonsense in forums at night, they just MIGHT be able to overcome the stigma of being crybabies. That way they may juuusssst be able to get a job someday. If the resume reviewer can stop laughing!

    What passes for intelligence these days is amazing.

    Nah, that won’t happen. Life’s tough when you’re stupid.

    1. Avatar
      Rose Hauser 3 years ago

      Damn, if only the average ACT score at Emory was a 32 or something.

      Oh wait, it is.

      Didn’t bother to research that either, did ya?

      1. Avatar
        ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

        I thought you said that a ton of people at Emory are racists?
        Or as you said, at least as racist as the South?

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          You really do excel at quoting people out of context, don’t you?

          It’s about as racist as the rest of the south, which as an aggregate, tends to be more racist than the north or northwest for example. That doesn’t mean a ton of the people there are racist, it just means it’s higher than a national aggregate. Racism that lingers in emory is usually in policies and administrators. I said NOTHING about “a ton of people” being racist.

          1. Avatar
            Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

            It’s about as racist as the rest of the south, which as an aggregate, tends to be more racist than the north or northwest for example.

            [citation needed]

          2. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            This explains why you think that Wikipedia is a source.

          3. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Even though I’ve literally said it wasn’t?
            kk

          4. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Why are you defending it as accurate, if you don’t believe its a source?

          5. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Because it’s logically possible for something to be accurate without using it as a source? Nothing about calling something accurate entails using it as a source for something.

            “The sky is blue”, Jerry said.

            Since I can look up and see the sky is blue, I know his statement is accurate. But if I was trying to quote a source for the sky being blue, I would point to how we interpret refracting light, not Jerry.

          6. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Its not that we interpret refracting light. Its that the refracting light is blue.
            Ergo, there’s nothing to argue with Jerry about.

            And while its logically possible for someone to defend something as a source while not using it, you really won’t admit the flaws in the study by Nature, nor reveal where you got that 95% thing from.

          7. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            The refracting light is interpreted by our eyes as blue. What you’re not including there is that other animals or any other entity van theoretically interpret the light differently because of how their eyes work.
            Also, you were never arguing with Jerry at all. My argument was that if you had to prove the sky was blue, you would say it was because of how our eyes interpreted light and sight articles about optics, you wouldn’t say “The sky is blue because Jerry says it is.”

          8. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “The refracting light is interpreted by our eyes as blue. What you’re not
            including there is that other animals or any other entity van
            theoretically interpret the light differently because of how their eyes
            work.”

            Bzzzt.
            I’m a photographer. Blue is blue. The color of the light doesn’t change because animals interpret it differently… because we literally determine what blue is. Blue doesn’t change because animals might detect infrared, ultra violet, or be color blind.
            The color is still blue, defined as such because it is a certain wavelength. That wavelength doesn’t change because an animal might not have the ability to read it, or might interpret it in a different way.
            I’m beginning to feel like you’re punking me.

          9. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            The thing I just realized is that this entire section is a red herring.

            Don’t get distracted. My point is that it’s logical to call something accurate without using it as a source. And my analogy that you can call a statement accurate without using the statement as the source is still valid. This sub-argument about the validity of a scientific aspect of the analogy isn’t relevant, because even if I was totally wrong about the optics here, the analogy is still valid. You still say the sky is blue because your eyes see it that way, you would never say it’s blue because Jerry said it was, so it must be. Unless you have an actual logical hole in the conclusion that calling something accurate doesn’t require using it as a source, we’re done here.

            Funny, I thought the same thing when I realized I was being drilled on optics when it wasn’t relevant to the conclusion.

          10. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “This sub-argument about the validity of a scientific aspect of the
            analogy isn’t relevant, because even if I was totally wrong about the
            optics here, the analogy is still valid. You still say the sky is blue
            because your eyes see it that way, you would never say it’s blue because
            Jerry said it was, so it must be.”

            Well, no. Its relevant on a number of levels.
            Blue is defined by a wavelength. It doesn’t change.
            More importantly, again, you won’t concede that you were wrong.
            How you’re applying the whole blue thing in an analogy is – of course- completely lost now. But I was never completely understanding of how Jerry calling the sky blue applies to how you don’t use Wikipedia as a source, but wanted to defend it.

          11. Avatar
            Liam McPoyle 3 years ago

            That’s not a citation, Rose. If you are incapable of producing a citation then I’ll have to invoke Hitchens’ Razor and relegate you to the vast crowd of comment board liars.

          12. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Methinks you’re expecting a lot…

          13. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            It sure did seem like you were suggesting that the reason why these ”

            particular kids were pushed over the edge into believing that Trump 2016 was a veiled threat was that there was so darned much racism happening. And when I prompted you, you said that it was as racist as the “rest of the South”, and seemed to suggest that it was very racist. I’m now going to presume that you meant it was just kinda racist?

            You wrote:
            “Racism that lingers in emory is usually in policies and administrators.”

            Since you continue to tell me that I don’t know about the racism at Emory… can you give us examples?

          14. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            No prompt ended in me saying it was very racist. You just asked for an idea of how racist it was, and I said about as much as the rest of the south. Atlanta’s climate is generally about on par with the record most of the southern states as far as racist things go. Good example of that would be the way MARTA was constructed. The mayor at the time MARTA was constructed was well known for being racist, which probably explains why he helped make sure it went around black neighborhoods. That’s one of the reasons MARTA is getting a full internal do over soon.

          15. Avatar
            erschroedinger 3 years ago

            Maynard Jackson was mayor when most of the early MARTA construction happened. (Jackson 74-82, MARTA began construction in 75. I’d be interested to know how you think Jackson was racist.

          16. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Because she’s a confused little child with no knowledge of history, civics or the real world.

            Typical leftist.

          17. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            No, he wasn’t. Construction projects have three main phases: planning and funding, then continued funding and referendums after the plans have been set, then construction. Jackson was mayor when the first two phased were over. Massell was mayor when the actual planning happened, which had to go through two referendums, partially for failing to account for black communities in Atlanta when planning railways and bus routes.

          18. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            As for examples at emory, plenty.

            -Admissions has continually flooded emory with Asian students yet somehow continues to have a comparably small amount of black students. This has happened so long that the evidence suggests the problem is that black prospective students are just snubbed in favor of international students because they have to pay more to the school.

            -JWags actually made an example of compromise in his address to the university a few years back that ACTUALLY USED THE 3/5 COMPROMISE to explain a “good example of compromise” in America.

            -Incidents of (fortunately few) professors saying racist things like using n***er to refer to black people or about how black people were thieves.

            -Unlike most of these, this was something the students did. Multiple reports from several fraternities and sororities with a high amount of black members that frats on the row throwing parties and then blocking black people from attending because “this isn’t a party for people like you” or “your kind isn’t welcome here”

            -There’s also the incident last year (I believe) of a Jewish frat getting covered in spray-paint swastikas. You can find that one in several news outlets I’m sure, as a couple of papers got it picked up.

          19. Avatar
            Havid Damburger 3 years ago

            Rose, are you a transgender?

            Anyway, sorry Rose. In America, things are earned on merit, not rationed by skin color.

            Your life sentence as a loser in a miserable existence will be punishment enough.

          20. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I like how he didn’t even counter anything presented, just went straight to name calling.
            How adorable, it thinks it’s smart!

          21. Avatar
            Havid Damburger 3 years ago

            Rose, excellent retort. Name calling is the bigotry of the left and you accurately called me on it. It is what we call an “ad-hominem attack”.

            That being said your worldview is not consistent with democracy or Western culture. Unfortunately for people of your view we are in a merit-based system.

            The Constitution was to protect us from monarchies in their armies. It turns out it’s protecting Western Civilization from vile, jelous, lesbian communists, just like you (ad hominem)

          22. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Gr8 b8 m8 no h8 I r8 8/8

          23. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Well, we USED to be an actual merit-based system. But unfortunately, not any more.

          24. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Things USED to be based on merit. Unfortunately, these days it’s based on who/what you are instead. Merit-based admissions should have never been replaced with quotas. The only quota necessary is to be sure the best applicants are admitted.

            When the bar is lowered to this level, no one wins.

          25. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “Admissions has continually flooded emory with Asian students yet somehow
            continues to have a comparably small amount of black students. This has
            happened so long that the evidence suggests the problem is that black
            prospective students are just snubbed in favor of international students
            because they have to pay more to the school.”

            What???
            Are you literally suggesting that Asian students are given preference based on race????

          26. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Did you understand that at all?

            The issue is that emory IS giving international Asian students preference because they pay more.
            Again, you’re not reading. you’re glossing over.

          27. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            I read what you said, Rose.
            You wrote:
            “The issue is that emory IS giving international Asian students preference because they pay more.”

            But you’re making it a RACIAL ISSUE. Now explain to me how its racism if other students FROM OUTSIDE OF THE US pay more????

          28. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Because Emory is giving preference to an international student group BY ACTIVELY NOT ADMITTING BLACK STUDENTS AND ONLY THEM IN FAVOR OF THE ASIAN ONES.
            They aren’t supposed to give ANY of that kind of bias.

          29. Avatar
            Red Ghost 3 years ago

            Or it could be that there are more qualified Asians than qualified blacks. Or is the University supposed to scrap standards altogether in order to maintain an arbitrary amount of each race.

          30. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            You said that they were giving the international students acceptance based on how much more money they paid.
            Are you literally arguing that if I pay you more money for something, and you take it from me rather then another person who won’t pay as much, that its racist?

          31. Avatar
            Red Ghost 3 years ago

            Everything is “racist” to these people.

          32. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Nowhere did I say that. I said that black students were being snubbed because emory could just choose not to let them in and make more money. the problem with that is that intentionally keeping out a demographic in order to make money like that is racist, because that bias isn’t something that should exist at all. It would be different if They excluded EVERY race the exact same amount in order to make money. Then it would only be indicative of Emory’s admissions being greedy.
            However, intentionally singling out one group to exclude admissions from in order to let anyone on more is racist. In this case, Emory’s admissions just did something that was both racist AND greedy.

          33. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            ” It would be different if They excluded EVERY race the exact same amount
            in order to make money. Then it would only be indicative of Emory’s
            admissions being greedy.
            However, intentionally singling out one group to exclude admissions from in order to let anyone on more is racist.”

            Make up your mind.
            Did they do so to make more money, or because they were racist?

          34. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “JWags actually made an example of compromise in his address to the
            university a few years back that ACTUALLY USED THE 3/5 COMPROMISE to
            explain a “good example of compromise” in America.”

            Are you literally arguing that a fraction, in itself, is racist?? I cannot wait to hear the background to this story.

            “-There’s also the incident last year (I believe) of a Jewish frat getting covered in spray-paint swastikas.”
            http://www.decaturish.com/2014/10/emory-frat-targeted-graffiti-accused-racism/

            Is this the same Jewish frat that was accused of racism?

            I’m still trying to find the other examples you listed in the news. But the example above, said that one frat member told someone “go back to india”. Which, if that’s the worst example of racism on campus? That’s better then most cities.

          35. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            “are you literally arguing that a fraction, in itself, is racist?”

            No, I’m arguing that using the 3/5 compromise, which stated that black people were worth 0.6 what white people were worth, as an example of good compromise is racist. No one except you created the argument that a fraction was racist.

          36. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            ” I’m arguing that using the 3/5 compromise, which stated that black
            people were worth 0.6 what white people were worth, as an example of
            good compromise is racist.”

            Wait, wait, wait: I just found the article that you’re talking about.

            Emory’s president was defending the idea that compromise is a great thing. And in doing so, he pointed out the 3/5th compromise.
            Which people took as him endorsing racism, rather then him pointing out that the 3/5 compromise was the first step in recognizing that black people WERE people.
            YES? That’s what you thought of racism existing on campus???

          37. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            No, the racism was using the 3/5 compromise at all in this context. Using a document that states black people could constitute anything less than a real person is racist. Ya know, because that’s what racism at its core is. Saying one race is inferior to another in any fashion. If you looked that hard, you’d also know that Jwags later apologized because of how terrible a choice it was.

          38. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            I saw that he apologized, already. Just as he cowtowed to the kids coming into his office complainging about how they felt fear because of the chalkings.
            I also understood his point… that he was never praising the 3/5th compromise for not making people of color a full person… but because it was a giant step in that direction.
            At no time did he say that 3/5th of a person was “as it should be”. His entire point was that it was going in the right direction. That the students missed his point proves that they’re not being intellectual about what he said, but thinking with their hearts, rather then their heads.

          39. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            No, it wasn’t. You’re definitely not looking hard enough. A Jewish frat got covered in swastikas and the story got on national news. If you look in the wheel’s archive, you’ll find editorials about it as well. The second Jewish frat incident happened AFTER the swastikas.

      2. Avatar
        John 3 years ago

        For Rose… and all the other little SJWs out there at Emory

        I was done with you but I took the liberty (a word you don’t understand) of reading what you posted after I went to bed last night. Some of us have real jobs and responsibilities you know. But I’m going to try to give you some semblance of a mirror so you perhaps can learn something from this little encounter with reality. You clearly need the lesson.

        “Damn, if only the average ACT score at Emory was a 32 or something.”

        This is exactly what we’re all talking about. Thanks for proving our points once again. Wake up, honey boo boo – there’s a lot more to coping with life’s realities than test scores. You may be smart as a whip in a classroom, but you don’t know anything about real problems or how to deal with the real world.

        But before I get really started, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely – for proving another point: You kiddies are the future’s totalitarians and jack booted thugs. You proved that point in spades by hiding behind the veneer of “decorum” when what you are really hurt about is any view that doesn’t meet with your standards and your approval. You think you’re providing everyone with some kind of “service” that you apparently think WE need – as you stated – and went crying for a moderator to get someone booted from the forum.

        And after being reminded of Ms. Click at Missou calling for “muscle”, you double down to tell us all that you weren’t doing what we were WATCHING YOU DO. Paraphrasing here, “Oh, I wouldn’t command anyone to leave – that would be authoritarian!” she screeched. You’re actions are much louder than your placating words, sweetie. They betray your real and underlying intent – suppression of views contrary to yours. And EVERYBODY knows it. You’re exposed – and you did it to yourself.

        You need to learn to slow down and actually read – nay, more importantly, THINK before posting things. You’re so quick on the trigger, I watched you post less than 30 seconds after I put in a post. As one poster put it referring to your many frustrated little tirades, “Now you’re backtracking/foretracking all at once. No one has to put words into your mouth in order to feel good.” No kidding, no one needed to in order to be amused at your sophomoric rants.

        You are, even today – this very morning – STILL flustered – because you’re still posting about nothing germane to the topic at hand, and you’re still upset. And it is most entertaining. You apparently have NO idea how jejune your posts make you look, and admittedly I’ve had a lot of fun here watching you. But do you know what to me is the really funny part of all this?

        You actually CARE what I think! You actually care what we here on this forum think. I’m living in your head – RENT FREE! And I absolutely LOVE IT!

        You slept all last night (or maybe you were listening to DMX and Eminem) and wake up today and what do you do? STILL post to complain about how you’ve been so mistreated and misunderstood and about all your hurt widdle feelings! Wake up, sunshine. We. Simply. Don’t. Care. And neither does the world.

        What you’re missing here snowflake, is that there is a LOT more to intellect than academia and test scores. This is CLEARLY demonstrated not only by you, but all of those kindergarten protesters who call themselves “adults”.
        Things like learning how to handle life’s little annoyances. Like prioritizing what is important and what is not (I’d suggest actual studies instead of being an SJW). Things like not needlessly inflating small things into big things when it’s really not important. Things like learning the lesson of the Serenity Prayer – and for you guys, this is probably the most important. These are some of life’s little lessons you’re just not equipped to cope with. And it’s really not your fault. Like it or not, it’s your PARENT’S fault. They made sure you were academically equipped, but they didn’t prepare you for real life.

        You are not a rare and unique little snowflake… well, you really are, but not in the big scheme of things. The world doesn’t revolve around you or your feelings and desires. The world revolves around no one individual. The world doesn’t owe you anything. If anything, you owe something to the world – because of the opportunities you’ve been given, if nothing else.

        I greatly enjoyed watching you squirm (because ALL liberals do when confronted with truth) yesterday. No matter what was pointed out (like the fact that you and the protesters are little children who absolutely have NO problems in life – WHATSOEVER), you just couldn’t bring up the REAL issue you have with the chalking. No one blamed the chalk, no one thought it was the chalk. But pedantically, you continually whined about chalk and you whined a lot.
        And you whined about a lot of other, completely inconsequential things – until you finally admitted the “real” problem you have.

        It took a long time, but someone here finally got you to admit it: You and your fellow kindergartners were “offended” because you think Trump is a racist. And you kiddies just couldn’t bear to see his name in print – anywhere. THIS is why you were all hurt and whining. But you just couldn’t bring yourself to come out and say THAT, could you. That would have been way too direct and intellectually honest. You were just too afraid, and you censored YOURSELF. You reap what you sew. Nothing worse than mind forged manacles. Because only you can set yourself free.

        You’re smart, but I don’t think you ever will. Because I don’t think you can. You’re not equipped yet.

        Have a great life, I really and truly hope you do. Best of luck.

        1. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          Yeah, I tuned out once the tirade started again. TL;DR

          Thanks for getting more pissed off though, I needed a good laugh this morning. Again, I’ll be more than happy to check your numbers for you with my totalitarian engineering skills. <3

          1. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Too bad. You just might have learned something. But you won’t.
            But I’ll bet that secretly, privately – you’re reading it right now. You’re just too curious and wrapped up in it not to.

            No skin off my nose, either way baby!

          2. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I already learned you’re a moron. there wasn’t anything else to take away from that wall of text.

            Well bless yer heart there, sugarcube!

          3. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            😎 “Can too” “Can not” ad infinitum. Name calling… the last resort of a lost argument!

          4. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Oh hey look, editing again. Now that’s a last resort if I ever saw one.

          5. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            I don’ get it. Why do you like Wikipedia, but dislike when people edit their posts?

          6. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I don’t dislike it. I’m just making fun of John since he’s a troll. You get what you deserve.

          7. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            But what about editing his posts do you think should be made fun of?
            Him trying to make his point better?
            Or do you just hate when people are… clear?

          8. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            You get it. And it’s amazing how she’s still ranting about all this, isn’t it? My post must have put a bee in her bonnet. But instead of learning about free speech, she’s working to suppress it.

            No matter what’s been said, she’s still trying to suppress speech – just like Ms. Click at Missou.

            They may be the same person… you never see them in the same place at the same time!

          9. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Because he doesn’t edit to make his points better. His edits have all been him adding sentences retroactively into his posts to counter something I already presented that he didn’t have an explanation for. And by “counter something” in this case, I mean babble more about liberal conspiracies. You would know this had you followed his posts.

            Also, don’t set up a false dichotomy. There are more than two scenarios that could cause someone editing posts to be made fun of.

          10. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Still living in your head I see!

          11. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            Still getting butthurt I see! You poor sugarcube!

          12. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            You’re funny! I’m not the one crying to everyone about another poster!

            Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to have a pint.

            Have a nice day!

          13. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            “And by “counter something” in this case, I mean babble more about liberal conspiracies.”

            So his adding a liberal conspiracy, counters what you wrote?

          14. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            When I said “counter something” in that case, it was sarcastic, because going on a tirade about conspiracies without proof for said conspiracies is meaningless. Seriously, that was not difficult to rationalize. A ten year old could have followed that logic because it was so simple.

          15. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Its difficult to tell when you’re serious, and when you’re trying to be satirical. Both are kinda out there.

          16. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I dunno mate, you keep coming back to edit stuff. that tells me you’re pissed.
            Plus, I don’t need to study. already got a 32 ya know 😉

          17. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            On another discussion board I read something from someone like you.

            And then I recalled your post about “…you checking my numbers…”.

            No, Sweetie Pie. You’ll never get the chance.

            When I come across your resume I’ll toss it in the bin with the rest of your soiled diapers.

            How’s that for editing?

            😎

      3. Avatar
        Feltre 3 years ago

        ACT scores and IQ are only weakly correlated with conscientiousness and related characteristics. Henry Ford would likely have done very poorly on an ACT test but was very successful in life. I expect that the “intelligent” snowflakes at Emory will be failures in the real world.

        1. Avatar
          John 3 years ago

          And therein lies one of the points that these snowflakes don’t get.

        2. Avatar
          Rose Hauser 3 years ago

          This is true, in fact many students at emory feel the same (I’m one of them). However, it’s the only metric available (and necessary here) because his argument is that they should be studying more, when their average test score shows they probably study plenty.

          1. Avatar
            Feltre 3 years ago

            Rose, I was on a debate team too but this a perfect example of the difference between Emory and reality. Ted Cruz was a champion debater and he is getting his tail kicked by Trump’s simplistic hyperbole. You can’t take “passes for intelligence” literally or it takes you down a rabbit hole, especially if you actually agree with John’s core argument.

          2. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Thank you. It’s good to see that someone gets one of the core points of this discussion.

            It seems that no matter how you try to show someone the point, there are those who just cannot or will not get it.

            I have learned in life that it is most difficult to actually question one’s own views objectively or critically.

          3. Avatar
            Rose Hauser 3 years ago

            I would probably agree if his entire basis for it wasn’t that they were snowflakes and liberals. If he actually provided a shred of proof for them being completely disconnected from reality, this would be different.
            Unfortunately, he’s literally spent the entirety of his time whining about how anything he doesn’t agree with is totalitarianism and then blamed it on a conspiracy, which he provided no proof for. You can check his comments, literally all he’s done is b****h.

            As if that weren’t enough, there’s not a different way to interpret it. there’s no such thing as a metaphorical or figurative intelligence. If he’s talking about street smarts instead of book smarts, then saying “spent more time STUDYING” shouldn’t have been used. He can be vague and equivocate stuff all day long, but it’s his own fault. As he said, life’s tough when you’re stupid.

            That’s all kind of why I’ve just been counter-trolling him. Seems to work fine too, considering how butthurt he gets about it. He shouldn’t have trolled on the internet unless he expected to get bit back.

          4. Avatar
            ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

            Somehow, this is another term you don’t understand.
            Trolling on the internet is when you don’t actually want to discuss anything, but you’re just trying to piss people off. The act of trolling means that the person posting has no real point. They are just there to disagree.

  25. Avatar
    coolkavo 3 years ago

    Most of my time at Emory wasn’t spent all on academia but also socializing and getting to know a diverse set of people from all over the country, all over the world. I find that most of the time when you are offended, it is because someone else told you this was true. The media for a large part has propagated the idea that Mr. Trump is Hitler incarnated. As much as a louse, Donald is, he has not advocated the extermination of an ethnicity. The fear exhibited by the protesters is anxiety over the possibilities generated by an over-hyped media. Instead of allaying our fears, the news has only heightened our emotions. It so happens that, Trump is a master persuader and uses emotions to that effect. With great success, everybody from the GOP, Trump supporters, and Emory’s campus are all caught up in this game of emotions, like lemmings following the pied piper Trump—right over his cliff. It would be funny for me if it wasn’t so sad.

  26. Avatar
    Walks B Matt 3 years ago

    Response from Emory alumni has been posted, you can access the open letter here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/980919351994623/permalink/980984285321463/

    Emory Wheel – please feel free to publish more prominently. You are an addressee.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Outstanding response. It’s really great to see some alumni stand up to this nonsense. Thank you.

      This goes to show that there are still thinking people who respect freedom in this world.

  27. Avatar
    Havid Damburger 3 years ago

    Most non whites openly oppose the values of Western culture. They have been tought to think this way. Anh Duy Ngyuen is another example of that

  28. Avatar
    Rose Hauser 3 years ago

    Hey check it out, that’s the second post that you turned to periods. You must really love editing, eh?

  29. Avatar
    roccolore 3 years ago

    Liberals = cowards upset over chalk writing

  30. Avatar
    Banff1967 3 years ago

    Yeah, except the protestors didn’t counter protest to have their views heard but instead ran to administration to have the “chalker” identified, punished, and to have new policies put in place that would restrict speech because they found it offensive and/or frightening. If they had printed up signs saying Trump is a rascist, NO TRUMP 2016, etc. and marched around all day no one would have reacted the way they did, but that is NOT what they did. They didn’t exercise their freedom of expression they expressly tried to have the administration deny others the right to freedom of expression. This is all about the attempt on this campus and others by certain students to try and “legislate” what speech is acceptable and what isn’t, and that is the problem.

    1. Avatar
      Feltre 3 years ago

      Look at the pictures. They did have the “Dump Trump” sign and others. Didn’t they stop to consider that they may be hurting the feelings of Trump supporters? But wait, the Trump supporters aren’t whiny little snowflakes, so no, their feelings weren’t hurt by the protesters hateful signs.

  31. Avatar
    danny Lucibello 3 years ago

    “one of the protesters clarified that what they want is for the University to acknowledge the pain caused to many students by the chalking. ”

    The University is under no obligation to acknowledge either the protesters ‘feelings’ or the Trump supporters. It’s only concern should be to provide an open atmosphere for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. It sounds like the author is unhappy with the groundswell of criticism that the protesters and the Administration has received. No one has stopped anyone at Emory from expressing their displeasure about Trump. If you want true free speech than you open yourself up to the possibility that an opinion or action may garner a large amount of feedback and it isn’t always going to tickle. You may live in a city where a KKK rally marches down main-street right past your house. And as sick and disgusting as the event may be, they have every right to do it, you have every right to protest it, and the local government doesn’t owe you an explanation a justification or a pat on the head to make you feel better. Every opinion or belief held by an individual has the possibility that someone somewhere may disagree, find it offensive or feel it is a personal attack. Trump supporters have the right to express their political positions openly. The protesters have the right to publicly disagree with those opinions. However, the public at large has the right to level whatever criticism it sees fit on the whole ridiculous mess.

    1. Avatar
      Banff1967 3 years ago

      Unfortunately the more the protestors and their supporters try to justify their behavior the more they reinforce and confirm the stereotype of whimpering little children who will be incapable of living in the real world once they leave their little cocoon on the Emory campus. It is truly amazing that they don’t “get it”. No one would have had any problem if they held an anti-Trump rally which is exactly what they should have done. What people have a problem with is that, instead of exercising their freedom of expression, they demanded that something be done to prevent the freedom of expression of others and that their hurt feelings be “acknowledged” in some fashion. The fully deserved the label that was given to them by the global media, both left and right, and hopefully a lesson was learned.

      1. Avatar
        John 3 years ago

        Precisely. They don’t get it.

        They’re not even close to prepared for life. And unfortunately, they believe their academic achievements alone are enough. And they are the future’s Brown Shirts and I would imagine that many don’t even know what that means. Worse yet, for those who do, they cannot see the comparison.

        Poor parenting. An “education” sorely lacking in Civics and History. Hopefully a lesson was learned, but many won’t. Willfully, because they simply “know” they are somehow “right” in their assessment of the world (because they’re all “passionate” and all) – and this is an assessment founded with very limited knowledge.

        I am however, VERY happy to see how the public at large – both left and right – have overwhelmingly called out this infantile behavior in so-called “adults”.

        That gives me hope for the country.

    2. Avatar
      ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

      ” No one has stopped anyone at Emory from expressing their displeasure
      about Trump. If you want true free speech than you open yourself up to
      the possibility that an opinion or action may garner a large amount of
      feedback and it isn’t always going to tickle.”

      All of this cannot be said enough.

    3. Avatar
      Krzysztof Wolyniec 3 years ago

      Right on. This is very good.

  32. Avatar
    Yeshua Can 3 years ago

    “the pain caused to many students by the chalking”

    Read your own article, Ms. Nguyen,

    In a perfect world, students have so little to complain about that they find something–anything that can become a causus belli for leftist drama (which is getting to be really obnoxious theater). In a perfect world, you have the liberty to concoct absurd neologistic crimes and point fingers against free thinking, “THE CHALKING” incident. Ooooh. I think I wet myself!

    YOU and your fellow students live in that perfect world. To call the protesters “tolerant” is to make a mockery of that minor virtue. There is no other way to put this: your fellow students literally freaked out when they saw Donald Trump’s name in chalk, so much that they wailed to the President and to the national media how “hurt” they were. I ask you, is this what reasonable people do?

    The general public, and more specifically, we, the alums and allies of Emory are embarrassed by the unwarranted drama and absurd high dudgeon begotten from mere mention of one person’s name. No, I don’t like Trump, but I have enough personal integrity to contain my shrill wails and ridiculous catharsis when I see something I do not support.

    I don’t support the protesters, and most people think their actions absurd for one simple reason; I really should say for LACK of reason. Their actions are based on pure emotion, pure catharsis–by their own words let us convict them. It is unintelligible high-minded nonsense worthy of the lowest machinations of political struggle, manipulation and coercion.

    We are trying to govern our country by attempting to govern ourselves. Those, such as the protesters on campus have demonstrated their lack capacity of many of those things necessary for self-government: maturity, articulation, the value of reason and logic and above all TOLERANCE. In order to be tolerant, Ms. Nguyen, one cannot lose one’s mind and resort to flighty emotion when the opposition speaks.

    As this drama plays out on my alma mater, please keep in mind that the truly intolerant ones here ARE indeed the protesters.

    1. Avatar
      Bob 3 years ago

      Beautifully said. Agree 100%.

    2. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Totally agree.

      Their actions WERE based on pure emotion and catharsis. And the clear desire to suppress someone else’s speech.

  33. Avatar
    Red Ghost 3 years ago

    There is no hypocrisy, nobody has argued that the students have no right to whine and moan. So your entire article is based on a completely false premise and straw-man argument. Save yourself from future embarrassment and delete it.

  34. Avatar
    Oleeve 3 years ago

    This story is completely misleading and untrue. The issue is not that they protested Trump, but that they very specifically asked for the University to take sides in disavowing Trump and by making the violators undergo a conduct hearing rather than pay a fine for not chalking in the right places. It’s really sad that you’re willing to leave out key facts in trying to twist this into a race issue.

    1. Avatar
      Red Ghost 3 years ago

      They don’t teach critical thinking at Emory, apparently. The end result is lazy writing like this article.

    2. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Exactly.

      Inside every liberal is a totalitarian trying to get out!

      1. Avatar
        Oleeve 3 years ago

        I wouldn’t say every liberal, I’m a liberal and I don’t believe in limiting free speech. They’re more radicals I would say.

        1. Avatar
          John 3 years ago

          I completely agree.

          That line is a play on a line from the movie “Full Metal Jacket”.

          1. Avatar
            Oleeve 3 years ago

            Oh okay, haha, sorry I didn’t catch that!

          2. Avatar
            John 3 years ago

            Yeah, I should probably change it to

            “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian trying to get out”

            It’s more accurate. 😉

  35. Avatar
    Dee 3 years ago

    Man, have you got it wrong, They have an absolute right to say what they want to say and protest what they want to protest without sanction on any kind. But nobody is obligated to support them. The stand for their Individual Conscience and personal opinion and it has to be that way, there is no quorum or consensus required for them to speak.. some may think them hero’s and some may think them jerks based on their own Individual Conscience and person opinion .. there is no balancing.
    Now, if they want support.. make a cogent and persuasive argument to bring people into agreement. Speaking freely is a right, agreement and support must be earned in the free market place of ideas by something more substantial than hurt feelings. Being offended in and of itself Is neither sufficient cause nor reason for support or agreement for any Idea or every feeling.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Exactly. Well said.

    1. Avatar
      Dee 3 years ago

      I think you just saved Emory’s butt. RESPECT!

      1. Avatar
        John 3 years ago

        HA! 😎

  36. Avatar
    John 3 years ago

    They’ve managed to embarrass the entire school quite nicely upon the national and world stage. Their parents must be so proud….

  37. Avatar
    Oleeve 3 years ago

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/253641-obama-hits-coddled-liberal-college-students

    Thought I would post this. One of our most powerful and respectable liberal and POC voices, President Obama, takes on a different stance.

  38. Avatar
    John 3 years ago

    Trump “Chalking Protesters”:

  39. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    “False, because the protesters complained of this, not every student in the student body.”

    WTF?
    No newspaper or news source suggested that every member of the student body was protesting.
    Are you daft?

  40. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    “Do you actually know how the Wikimedia foundation works? They literally
    have scores of volunteer experts scouring articles for falsities.
    Technically anyone can edit it, but that doesn’t mean you can go on
    there, say the sky is red, and expect it to stay.”

    They can’t expect it to stay.
    But being a volunteer editor doesn’t mean that you are:
    1) knowledgeable

    2) able to weed out falsities
    3) looking past a bias

    I seriously don’t get why you would defend something that you say “Of course you don’t use it for papers”.

    Wait; different question: if its reliable… why won’t you use it for papers?

  41. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    “Snopes actually doesn’t. That’s part of the problem with people reacting
    to this without actually going to the school itself. I can explain for a
    fact that at least 90% of the student body at emory doesn’t care.”

    Well, great.
    But you were arguing that Snopes was RIGHT to say that the facts it debunked were “wrong” when at no time did any article submit that the entire school, or even a good portion of the school, was protesting.
    You’re suggesting that Snopes was debunking something that no newspaper asserted… instead of admitting that the Snopes article was poorly researched, and came to a conclusion of what was false, was actually true.

  42. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    Rose doesn’t like it when you edit.
    I don’t get why this is.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Well, I don’t either. She’s sometimes so fast on the keyboard, I cannot complete or refine a thought before she’s posting again.

      Whatever…..

  43. Avatar
    ChicagoJohn 3 years ago

    “okay so are you “John” who I originally responded to? I assumed you were
    “as your username also has John in it. But it appears “John” is a
    different person than “ChicagoJohn”.”

    Yeah. Go figure. When you address something to me, I’ll correct you on it. I actually made the point that I wasn’t the one who siad it.

    And yes, its pretty clear that some younger people are incapable of changing their opinions. Go figure… there are a lot of people out there who are incapable of changing their opinions. You should grasp this more than others, when you responded to my post calling me names, right after you wrote:
    “Try offering criticism that is devoid of character attacks and
    inflammatory language and instead focus on the logical fallacies and
    misguided actions made by these students.”

    Neat.

  44. Avatar
    Debbie 3 years ago

    Nobody expects the special snowflakes to not voice their opinions. But when they claim to be in “pain” because of some innocuous chalk messages, they are begging to be mocked, and mockery is a sensible response to them. You can’t have meaningful dialog with coddled children who clamp their hands on their ears and scream “la la la, I can’t hear you” or “stop it you’re hurting me” when somebody expresses a view they disagree with.

    Failure to adequately mock such fragile flowers is part of the reason this campus PC nonsense keeps getting ever more absurd.

    1. Avatar
      John 3 years ago

      Bingo.

  45. Avatar
    ndmike12 3 years ago

    No one is claiming that expressing pain or outrage is a threat to free speech. People are bringing up free speech because of the demands that the chalker be identified and punished, and because of the University’s promise to do just that. What is being mocked–and deservedly so–is the belief of some students that they are entitled to see the chalker punished for writing pro-Trump slogans.

Comments are closed.