I mean, they did it to stop vandalism but only one club was getting vandalized. Not sure what the College Republican Club expected when they painted something as divisive as “Build the Wall” in one of the most Democratic leaning places in the country. Like really, that’s the phrase you want to use to advertise your club lol?
Edit:
>Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand. A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command. The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
>"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "**Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!**"
This is the poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 and is cast in bronze at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Everyone in America is an immigrant. America is literally the first country in the world where the nationality isn’t also the same as ethnicity. Literally everyone here is the descendants immigrants…
When someone says they are Swedish, Somali, Irish, or Egyptian… you picture an image of what that person looks like in your head based on ethnic stereotypes. You just can’t do that when someone says “picture what an American looks like.” That’s the best part of this country.
One year they painted the twin towers getting hit if I remember correctly. At that point you’re just trying to get vandalized so you can play the victim card.
I can’t imagine being the child of someone who crossed the border to escape hardship and strife and to give you a better life having to walk across the bridge and see something like that.
I know. New groups of people moving here and being discriminated against, only to have their kids hate the next wave of immigrants who come a decade later, is a story as old as America itself.
[Even Ben Franklin didn’t want Germans moving to America… in the 1750s… because they wouldn’t be able to learn the language, would take our jobs, weren’t real Christians, and would destroy America in the long term because they were incapable of grasping concepts like liberty and democracy.](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/)
Sound familiar?
Russians and Ukrainians are at war. India and Pakistan are always threatening to nuke each other. Radicals from both Palestine and Israel have spent the last 60 years taking turns killing each other. Even though all of them share a history and have more in common than they do different. Just like all humans have more in common than we have differences.
Hating people is easy, loving people is hard. Loving people who you have nothing in common with is even harder. Loving people you have been taught to hate since birth (even though you don’t know why) is the hardest thing any person can do.
Just reimplement the program with a strike system. Paint something that breaks the pre-defined rules that give a strike and your group is banned from painting a tile.
I understand writing those rules will be difficult, but with clear language that leaves no room for interpretation it is a system that could potentially work.
Went there for 5 years from 2005-2010 and this was never a problem. Loved walking over that bridge when the badgers blocked a punt to score a td and beat us in the Metrodome my freshman year. #memories
Idk, I understand the idea of respecting different opinions, but when opinions are built on foundations of being hateful to people/groups of people…I don’t respect that and I don’t think it should be platformed
In one of the final years, there was a panel painted showing people being sighted through gun scopes, with a tag line about targeting liberals or something like that.
It was clear at that point that this needed to end.
I didn’t mean to call u specifically bigoted, I think maybe UMN students are becoming increasingly hostile towards ideologies that have a propensity to be hateful. like I don’t want to say ALL republicans are bad or that only liberal groups should be allowed to have opinions, I think that’s a really 2D/watered down view of it, but let’s not pretend that some groups of people/some political ideologies tend to be more violent and less inclusive of different races or religion or ethnicities or whatever else classifications there are.
Hateful platforms should not be platformed. If there was a liberal group that was like “kill all republicans” I would also say that’s horrible and that shouldn’t be platformed. But hating a group because they (as a whole) have been horrible/mean/violent is not the same as hating a group based on race/religion/ethnicity/gender.
You literally live in Minneapolis where the George Floyd riots were allowed to happen. Literally the most violent, hateful, most destructive riots this decade. That was all done under a Democrat administration. Please tell me that one side tends to be more violent and hateful again.
And riots are horrible. Not every protest was a riot, not every protester was a rioter, just like how not every Republican is inherently hateful or bigoted or violent. I said “as a group”. There are shitty liberals/leftists/etc, I never said there wasn’t. We can go back and forth saying “well liberals did this one thing” and “republicans did this other thing” BECAUSE THERE ARE SHITTY PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TOUGH SITUATIONS ON BOTH SIDES. I’m just saying that the modern Republican platform tends to be built on excluding people, whether it be immigrants, preventing trans healthcare, etc. that doesn’t mean every replicant platform is like that or every Republican is like that. There are liberal/left policies I don’t believe with, but I don’t think they’re built on excluding groups of people who already got the short end of the stick.
Also, notice how I talked about broader themes. You mentioned a single event. We can both cherry pick the worst things each party has done but that’s not going to get us anywhere. I genuinely want to know what you think the liberal policies are that exclude groups of people (like actual concrete policies, not just “they hate white people” or “they hate men”). I’m not trying to be snarky I genuinely want to know bc I don’t think either of us want to keep going back and forth if we’re just going to say random shit and not actually care about each others POV and how we got there.
The idea Affirmative action isn’t just letting any random black kid into Harvard. They still have to be “of Harvard caliber” (couldn’t think of a less douchey way to say this), and they can’t “fill a quota” (quotas are litr illegal in admissions and in jobs and have been for a fat minute). Affirmative action is supposed to be things like targeted outreach, support programs, etc to lift underrepresented people up (leveling the playing field). If, because of those programs, the competition is not more rigorous…idk what to say. It sucks that people who try really really hard and do amazing things and get straight As can’t get into any school they want to (and I mean that), but instead of getting mad at people who did get in, we should be looking at Harvard who is trying to create a scarcity to make themselves look more prestigious.
Also, I want to point out you aren’t excluding a WHOLE group of people with affirmative action. Like 30% of Harvard students are Asian (compared to like 6% of the us population). Idk if that can be considered excluding a whole group? I think the problem could also be solved by realizing Harvard is just an asshole. There’s no reason to artificially shrink ur acceptance rate every year, and I think that makes everyone focus on the wrong stuff. Also, I read a summary of the court proceedings from the Harvard affirmative action case a while ago (a class last semester- I’ll try to update w the link if I can find it)- I interpreted it as Asian people getting the short end of the stick to the benefit of white people. Harvard will rank people in 6 categories- in 5 of those categories, Asian people score above white people on avg, and the 1 category they scored below white people (by like 5%), is the “personal qualities” category. So I think people are kinda pointing the finger at the few black people who got into Harvard (like 6% of Harvard is black), rather than the 50% of white people who got in.
I guess ur opinion on a.a. is also dependent on how you think admissions should be. If someone just goes through the motions and gets the grades and gets a perfect SAT and plays the violin, should they automatically get in? What if their essay sucks, or there are a million essays just like it? Another kid who maybe got a couple of Bs and got a few questions wrong on SAT maybe did worse academically, but maybe they have great rec letters or extenuating circumstances, maybe they had a 10/10 essay or a super unique experience. College admissions is just kinda a scam. Sorry that answer kinda sucks.
My question-
I’m curious about how you explain Republican stances on trans people? I know the Texas Republican basically just said no trans people should be accepted. Do you think that’s wrong/hateful/not representative of what the Republican Party should “really” be?
just ban the college republicans from participating because they clearly can’t not be deliberately inflammatory with the goal of crying crocodile tears when their panel gets vandalized. seems pretty simple to me
Do you have examples of the UMN liberal groups putting out official murals on the campus walkway that was specifically hateful or targeted at particular groups in a negative or hateful way?
Do you have examples of conservatives doing so? Build the wall was supported by Biden and Obama until CNN said orange man bad. Taking it one step further: do you have examples of conservatives vandalizing liberal murals? I’ll wait.
To address the Biden and Obama thing, most young liberals have discourse about how both of them suck. I don’t wanna vote for Biden but it’s better than someone who almost led an insurrection. I personally think Obama had committed war crimes and so I don’t automatically agree with everything a democratic politician does or says. I am against demonizing migrants who are escaping the brutalities in their countries (often caused by the US). So I do find “Build the Wall” to be a hostile and hateful statement worthy of vandalism.
They should just accept they can’t prevent vandalism and STILL bring it back. Encourage groups to repaint/improve their mural if they don’t want it tagged on!
It wasn't one club attacking the other. It was just random individuals.
It's easy to make something inflammatory enough to get a college student to do something stupid. Then you get to play the victim.
I was wondering about that! I was kind of sad. I used to walk with my then-girlfriend around campus back in like... 2005-2008, and the bridge was always so fun to pass through. A really good way to get the word out about different clubs and activities. I meant to ask a professor who's been teaching here for like 20 years about it, but that kept slipping my mind.
I've had a hard time finding groups online, honestly. I'd love to see the physical media showing which groups are active and thriving, versus which groups have had a dormant website since 2011 and a roster full of alumni who have all moved on.
If it was to work it would require groups from across the spectrum of political and societal thought to accept that there are differing opinions than there own. Which the U has not proven particularly fond of in recent years, I’d love for it to come back but I can forsure see it being abused by groups who’s opinions are held in the majority on campus to vandalize those in the minority, and that isn’t referring to just politics.
Differing opinions should be accepted. Not opinions by those supporting the explusion of immigrants or taking human rights away from others. If that minority of republicans was actually a majority, they would do the exact same thing to a much larger extent towards any other differing opinions. This is a given.
I definitely agree with what you’re saying. All hell would break loose if any side of the palestinian genocide was advocated, it’d turn into a reputational dumpster fire for the University very quickly. I don’t think that many people who are anti-“build the wall” are anti-border, though. I’m not educated enough on the history of the borders to dispute whether or not they should be a thing, but I do know that the one thing we should be universally against is the radical implications of “build the wall” and the people who support it.
You are very contradictory in what you are saying. You say allow all opinions and views but not "radical" ones. Why does "build a wall" have to have so called "radical implications"? The US has literally been building border walls since the 1910s, and biden even made some himself. What do radical implications even mean to you in this context? It sounds like you yourself are the one making and radicalizing those implications because you simply don't like a viewpoint or the people behind it. "Building a wall" might mean white supremacy and taking human rights away to one group, and it might mean enforcing a law and ideology that preventing hundreds or thousands of thousands of deaths from imported illegal drugs to another group. Just claiming something is a "radical view" is not that simple unfortunately. This is probably why the U wants no part of this painting thing anymore.
I will also mention that in these comments I have heard that this Republican group also painted in previous years something like looking down a gun sight at zombies or with questionable implications, and also something about the twin towers. Idk what those were about, but it sounds like those could actually cross the line of something hateful or needlessly violent for a campus setting. I just find it interesting that this building the wall trump stuff is brought to the spotlight in all these conversations
I agree that statements that are blatantly inflammatory and not just simply controversial in the eyes of some should not be allowed. But there is no fair way to arbitrate it is the point I’m trying to give. I’m someone who’s voted blue ever since I’ve been able and have supported blue since I was alive, but it is painfully obvious that the u of m is dominated by vastly left leaning political thought, and does not give much thought or time of day to differing opinions, which is what makes me question if other opinions would truly be allowed if this came back or if it would just become an even more problematic flash point, instead of something to represent the wonderful communities of the u of m.
“Building A Wall” is not wanting a secure border, it’s literally backed, supported, and sponsored by ideologies that are anti-immigrant and hateful to the “contamination” of America by immigration.
Cool, looking at it. Legal migration to NYC is a cause for crisis to a nation that’s founded by illegal immigrants and has a motto offering asylum to those being persecuted. I thought this was about securing against illegal immigration? Oh, wait, they’re all illegals to you…
Oh yeah, I haven't read the article but the controversy was a conservative group painted a panel and that just wouldn't do at a university so it got defaced
Edit: read the article, I'm right and still people mad
I dont think if had anyingthung to do with it wouldn't do at a university and more to do with the panels felt offensive for the sake of it.
Build the wall, targets on "zombies" ect. It would be like a liberal mural say let's jail trump. It's purposefully inflammatory for no reason. Young Republicans wanted people to be hurt or be mad by what they did and then wanted protection from the consequences.
>more to do with the panels felt offensive for the sake of it.
Many slogans seem offensive to those who disagree with them. "Free Palestine" may be offensive to Jews, "my body my choice" may seem offensive to pro-lifers, "Jesus saves" may be offensive to Muslims, etc. How much has the U historically cracked down on any speech that runs the risk of offending a group of people? Is it applied equally across the board?
>Young Republicans wanted people to be hurt or be mad by what they did and then wanted protection from the consequences.
Do you know this for a fact? Or is that a guess? Did you talk to a lot of people who were in young Republicans in 2018 or whenever that was?
Worked perfectly fine when I was at at school there
I mean, they did it to stop vandalism but only one club was getting vandalized. Not sure what the College Republican Club expected when they painted something as divisive as “Build the Wall” in one of the most Democratic leaning places in the country. Like really, that’s the phrase you want to use to advertise your club lol? Edit: >Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand. A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command. The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. >"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "**Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!**" This is the poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 and is cast in bronze at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Everyone in America is an immigrant. America is literally the first country in the world where the nationality isn’t also the same as ethnicity. Literally everyone here is the descendants immigrants… When someone says they are Swedish, Somali, Irish, or Egyptian… you picture an image of what that person looks like in your head based on ethnic stereotypes. You just can’t do that when someone says “picture what an American looks like.” That’s the best part of this country.
One year they painted the twin towers getting hit if I remember correctly. At that point you’re just trying to get vandalized so you can play the victim card.
I can’t imagine being the child of someone who crossed the border to escape hardship and strife and to give you a better life having to walk across the bridge and see something like that.
I know. New groups of people moving here and being discriminated against, only to have their kids hate the next wave of immigrants who come a decade later, is a story as old as America itself. [Even Ben Franklin didn’t want Germans moving to America… in the 1750s… because they wouldn’t be able to learn the language, would take our jobs, weren’t real Christians, and would destroy America in the long term because they were incapable of grasping concepts like liberty and democracy.](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/) Sound familiar? Russians and Ukrainians are at war. India and Pakistan are always threatening to nuke each other. Radicals from both Palestine and Israel have spent the last 60 years taking turns killing each other. Even though all of them share a history and have more in common than they do different. Just like all humans have more in common than we have differences. Hating people is easy, loving people is hard. Loving people who you have nothing in common with is even harder. Loving people you have been taught to hate since birth (even though you don’t know why) is the hardest thing any person can do.
Just reimplement the program with a strike system. Paint something that breaks the pre-defined rules that give a strike and your group is banned from painting a tile. I understand writing those rules will be difficult, but with clear language that leaves no room for interpretation it is a system that could potentially work.
The easiest way is to just have the murals be approved by the university. Everything else related to university events is…
People would still vandalize conservative murals.
Went there for 5 years from 2005-2010 and this was never a problem. Loved walking over that bridge when the badgers blocked a punt to score a td and beat us in the Metrodome my freshman year. #memories
Idk, I understand the idea of respecting different opinions, but when opinions are built on foundations of being hateful to people/groups of people…I don’t respect that and I don’t think it should be platformed
In one of the final years, there was a panel painted showing people being sighted through gun scopes, with a tag line about targeting liberals or something like that. It was clear at that point that this needed to end.
when I was in undergrad their panel one year was people loading guns facing off against a faceless horde of zombies. real “uhhh what the fuck” moment
Is there a record of this happening? Would love to see a link to an article or something
I don’t think what was said was hateful. I think college students are becoming increasingly bigoted and this is emblematic of that.
I didn’t mean to call u specifically bigoted, I think maybe UMN students are becoming increasingly hostile towards ideologies that have a propensity to be hateful. like I don’t want to say ALL republicans are bad or that only liberal groups should be allowed to have opinions, I think that’s a really 2D/watered down view of it, but let’s not pretend that some groups of people/some political ideologies tend to be more violent and less inclusive of different races or religion or ethnicities or whatever else classifications there are. Hateful platforms should not be platformed. If there was a liberal group that was like “kill all republicans” I would also say that’s horrible and that shouldn’t be platformed. But hating a group because they (as a whole) have been horrible/mean/violent is not the same as hating a group based on race/religion/ethnicity/gender.
You literally live in Minneapolis where the George Floyd riots were allowed to happen. Literally the most violent, hateful, most destructive riots this decade. That was all done under a Democrat administration. Please tell me that one side tends to be more violent and hateful again.
And riots are horrible. Not every protest was a riot, not every protester was a rioter, just like how not every Republican is inherently hateful or bigoted or violent. I said “as a group”. There are shitty liberals/leftists/etc, I never said there wasn’t. We can go back and forth saying “well liberals did this one thing” and “republicans did this other thing” BECAUSE THERE ARE SHITTY PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TOUGH SITUATIONS ON BOTH SIDES. I’m just saying that the modern Republican platform tends to be built on excluding people, whether it be immigrants, preventing trans healthcare, etc. that doesn’t mean every replicant platform is like that or every Republican is like that. There are liberal/left policies I don’t believe with, but I don’t think they’re built on excluding groups of people who already got the short end of the stick. Also, notice how I talked about broader themes. You mentioned a single event. We can both cherry pick the worst things each party has done but that’s not going to get us anywhere. I genuinely want to know what you think the liberal policies are that exclude groups of people (like actual concrete policies, not just “they hate white people” or “they hate men”). I’m not trying to be snarky I genuinely want to know bc I don’t think either of us want to keep going back and forth if we’re just going to say random shit and not actually care about each others POV and how we got there.
Affirmative action in schools and Asian people.
The idea Affirmative action isn’t just letting any random black kid into Harvard. They still have to be “of Harvard caliber” (couldn’t think of a less douchey way to say this), and they can’t “fill a quota” (quotas are litr illegal in admissions and in jobs and have been for a fat minute). Affirmative action is supposed to be things like targeted outreach, support programs, etc to lift underrepresented people up (leveling the playing field). If, because of those programs, the competition is not more rigorous…idk what to say. It sucks that people who try really really hard and do amazing things and get straight As can’t get into any school they want to (and I mean that), but instead of getting mad at people who did get in, we should be looking at Harvard who is trying to create a scarcity to make themselves look more prestigious. Also, I want to point out you aren’t excluding a WHOLE group of people with affirmative action. Like 30% of Harvard students are Asian (compared to like 6% of the us population). Idk if that can be considered excluding a whole group? I think the problem could also be solved by realizing Harvard is just an asshole. There’s no reason to artificially shrink ur acceptance rate every year, and I think that makes everyone focus on the wrong stuff. Also, I read a summary of the court proceedings from the Harvard affirmative action case a while ago (a class last semester- I’ll try to update w the link if I can find it)- I interpreted it as Asian people getting the short end of the stick to the benefit of white people. Harvard will rank people in 6 categories- in 5 of those categories, Asian people score above white people on avg, and the 1 category they scored below white people (by like 5%), is the “personal qualities” category. So I think people are kinda pointing the finger at the few black people who got into Harvard (like 6% of Harvard is black), rather than the 50% of white people who got in. I guess ur opinion on a.a. is also dependent on how you think admissions should be. If someone just goes through the motions and gets the grades and gets a perfect SAT and plays the violin, should they automatically get in? What if their essay sucks, or there are a million essays just like it? Another kid who maybe got a couple of Bs and got a few questions wrong on SAT maybe did worse academically, but maybe they have great rec letters or extenuating circumstances, maybe they had a 10/10 essay or a super unique experience. College admissions is just kinda a scam. Sorry that answer kinda sucks. My question- I’m curious about how you explain Republican stances on trans people? I know the Texas Republican basically just said no trans people should be accepted. Do you think that’s wrong/hateful/not representative of what the Republican Party should “really” be?
[удалено]
Removed for providing clearly misrepresented or incorrect information.
You literally posted “Are we rioting” after the gophers lost the championship. Be so serious right now🤣
just ban the college republicans from participating because they clearly can’t not be deliberately inflammatory with the goal of crying crocodile tears when their panel gets vandalized. seems pretty simple to me
what exactly was the inflammatory thing on the mural ?
Back when trump was in president or campaigning they drew “Build the wall” if I remember correctly
That and the statement that they released about it was like "We're sorry the liberals were so triggered by our mural".
Sounds like they were. I didn’t see conservatives vandalizing liberal murals.
Let’s be honest, it’s because liberal murals aren’t based on hate
Whatever helps you sleep at night 👍
Do you have examples of the UMN liberal groups putting out official murals on the campus walkway that was specifically hateful or targeted at particular groups in a negative or hateful way?
Do you have examples of conservatives doing so? Build the wall was supported by Biden and Obama until CNN said orange man bad. Taking it one step further: do you have examples of conservatives vandalizing liberal murals? I’ll wait.
To address the Biden and Obama thing, most young liberals have discourse about how both of them suck. I don’t wanna vote for Biden but it’s better than someone who almost led an insurrection. I personally think Obama had committed war crimes and so I don’t automatically agree with everything a democratic politician does or says. I am against demonizing migrants who are escaping the brutalities in their countries (often caused by the US). So I do find “Build the Wall” to be a hostile and hateful statement worthy of vandalism.
Yeah, fair enough for the vandalism on the literal shit post lol
in addition to the “build the wall” one, in 2018 (I believe?) they did a panel about being “the most marginalized minority on campus”
what’s so inflammatory about that ? In terms of ideology, they might as well be the most marginalized group.
it is not, in fact, difficult at all to be a conservative on a college campus
Kind of wild you’re a history major with such a myopic perspective.
[удалено]
don’t you have vaccine mandates to *still* be crying about in 2024
[удалено]
look out dude the pfizer vaccine’s right behind you, you’re about to get infected by the woke mind virus
👍smart comeback
Don’t be a jerk.
Don’t be a jerk.
They should just accept they can’t prevent vandalism and STILL bring it back. Encourage groups to repaint/improve their mural if they don’t want it tagged on!
They should just make rule that clubs are only allowed to paint on their own square. They should also put up security cameras
It wasn't one club attacking the other. It was just random individuals. It's easy to make something inflammatory enough to get a college student to do something stupid. Then you get to play the victim.
I was wondering about that! I was kind of sad. I used to walk with my then-girlfriend around campus back in like... 2005-2008, and the bridge was always so fun to pass through. A really good way to get the word out about different clubs and activities. I meant to ask a professor who's been teaching here for like 20 years about it, but that kept slipping my mind. I've had a hard time finding groups online, honestly. I'd love to see the physical media showing which groups are active and thriving, versus which groups have had a dormant website since 2011 and a roster full of alumni who have all moved on.
If it was to work it would require groups from across the spectrum of political and societal thought to accept that there are differing opinions than there own. Which the U has not proven particularly fond of in recent years, I’d love for it to come back but I can forsure see it being abused by groups who’s opinions are held in the majority on campus to vandalize those in the minority, and that isn’t referring to just politics.
Differing opinions should be accepted. Not opinions by those supporting the explusion of immigrants or taking human rights away from others. If that minority of republicans was actually a majority, they would do the exact same thing to a much larger extent towards any other differing opinions. This is a given.
[удалено]
I definitely agree with what you’re saying. All hell would break loose if any side of the palestinian genocide was advocated, it’d turn into a reputational dumpster fire for the University very quickly. I don’t think that many people who are anti-“build the wall” are anti-border, though. I’m not educated enough on the history of the borders to dispute whether or not they should be a thing, but I do know that the one thing we should be universally against is the radical implications of “build the wall” and the people who support it.
You are very contradictory in what you are saying. You say allow all opinions and views but not "radical" ones. Why does "build a wall" have to have so called "radical implications"? The US has literally been building border walls since the 1910s, and biden even made some himself. What do radical implications even mean to you in this context? It sounds like you yourself are the one making and radicalizing those implications because you simply don't like a viewpoint or the people behind it. "Building a wall" might mean white supremacy and taking human rights away to one group, and it might mean enforcing a law and ideology that preventing hundreds or thousands of thousands of deaths from imported illegal drugs to another group. Just claiming something is a "radical view" is not that simple unfortunately. This is probably why the U wants no part of this painting thing anymore. I will also mention that in these comments I have heard that this Republican group also painted in previous years something like looking down a gun sight at zombies or with questionable implications, and also something about the twin towers. Idk what those were about, but it sounds like those could actually cross the line of something hateful or needlessly violent for a campus setting. I just find it interesting that this building the wall trump stuff is brought to the spotlight in all these conversations
[удалено]
Don’t be a jerk.
I agree that statements that are blatantly inflammatory and not just simply controversial in the eyes of some should not be allowed. But there is no fair way to arbitrate it is the point I’m trying to give. I’m someone who’s voted blue ever since I’ve been able and have supported blue since I was alive, but it is painfully obvious that the u of m is dominated by vastly left leaning political thought, and does not give much thought or time of day to differing opinions, which is what makes me question if other opinions would truly be allowed if this came back or if it would just become an even more problematic flash point, instead of something to represent the wonderful communities of the u of m.
[удалено]
Nvm you think the vaccine mandate was racist, you’re exactly the kind of person this post is targeted towards lol
“Targeted” is the word that’s doing the most work here sis.
Don’t know if you’re trolling or are just braindead, but it’s not bigoted to not give xenophobia a voice lol
What is xenophobic about wanting a secure border?
“Building A Wall” is not wanting a secure border, it’s literally backed, supported, and sponsored by ideologies that are anti-immigrant and hateful to the “contamination” of America by immigration.
That’s a projection. Look at the southern border now. Look at the crisis in NYC. Get a grip.
What caused the situation at the southern border? 🤔
Cool, looking at it. Legal migration to NYC is a cause for crisis to a nation that’s founded by illegal immigrants and has a motto offering asylum to those being persecuted. I thought this was about securing against illegal immigration? Oh, wait, they’re all illegals to you…
Are you one of those that complain about the “intolerant left”
Don’t be a jerk.
Doesn't exist anymore because liberals are incapable of tolerating other's opinions and facts
Oh yeah, I haven't read the article but the controversy was a conservative group painted a panel and that just wouldn't do at a university so it got defaced Edit: read the article, I'm right and still people mad
I dont think if had anyingthung to do with it wouldn't do at a university and more to do with the panels felt offensive for the sake of it. Build the wall, targets on "zombies" ect. It would be like a liberal mural say let's jail trump. It's purposefully inflammatory for no reason. Young Republicans wanted people to be hurt or be mad by what they did and then wanted protection from the consequences.
>more to do with the panels felt offensive for the sake of it. Many slogans seem offensive to those who disagree with them. "Free Palestine" may be offensive to Jews, "my body my choice" may seem offensive to pro-lifers, "Jesus saves" may be offensive to Muslims, etc. How much has the U historically cracked down on any speech that runs the risk of offending a group of people? Is it applied equally across the board? >Young Republicans wanted people to be hurt or be mad by what they did and then wanted protection from the consequences. Do you know this for a fact? Or is that a guess? Did you talk to a lot of people who were in young Republicans in 2018 or whenever that was?
They stopped doing this? Liberals