OT: Black Missouri players threatening to strike from football activities of demands aren't met.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:54 PM ^
But the university wouldn't offer these kids the opportunity to attend if it wasn't getting something of value in return from the players.
And don't forget that the NCAA sets rules that severely limit what the athletes can get from the university. Those rules mean that Mizzou is actually giving the athletes LESS in compensation (in the form of scholarships, etc) than the value they provide to the institution. If it weren't for NCAA rules, who knows how much more the athletes would get for their playing, but it would certainly be more than the status quo, esp at a big school like Missouri.
November 8th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^
for attendance. So they receive "value" from students as well.
November 8th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 3:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 4:30 PM ^
Stop resorting to gross distortions of what I wrote. What I said is that the university has every right to respond in kind. There are reactions to every action.
These kids are damaging Mizzou as much as they are helping it. I believe that they think that they are helping Mizzou, but they can't help how others will react to their actions. Those reactions may have unforeseen repercussions for Mizzou.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
Oh the irony when the guy who claims that white privielge is a myth, complains about "football player privelege."
November 8th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^
Second, white privilege is a misnomer. It's black disadvantage. It's not that i disagree that blacks have and often still are at a disadvantage it's the whitewashing and simplificaiton of not jsut the white experience but those of other groups as well.
When I say player privilege I say in regards to the student body as a whole. I have no issue with it as I believe societty agrees to it. So long as it is agreed upon privilege is acceptable.
November 8th, 2015 at 6:36 PM ^
So then the football players don't have "football player privelege" regular students just have "non-football player" disadvantage.
The only reason that you think that "white privelege" is a myth and "football player privelege" is somehow a real thing is because you consider being a white, non-football player as the norm and define everything else as the deviation from that norm.
Therefore the advantages of being a football player player can be "privelege" -- based on your definition of a non-football player norm.
Whereas being white can't be a a privelege - not because being white confers advantages over being black (as you readily admit it does) -- but simply because you define being white as the "norm", and therefore everything else can only be defined in reference to it.
If that's not a hilariously perfect example white privilege I don't know what is.
November 8th, 2015 at 4:57 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 2:31 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 2:34 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 5:07 PM ^
Kim Davis not doing her job is plausibly political speech. I suspect not playing would be political speech. But he didn't say he wouldn't coach, so IDK what the point here is.
Edit: I'm not editing the original comment as it appears in the previous paragraph, but I actually think I was wrong here. Davis is protected by religious rights, not speech rights. Anyway the last sentence stands.