He wasn't a genius, he was a figurehead for a popular opinion of the time.
Understanding that is key to preventing a repeat. For reasons that made sense to them, they chose him because he said "Let's get those fuckers" and they reacted eagerly.
You sure sound like an elitist...
This is the kind of binary thinking from programmers that erodes the nascent relationships among well-meaning human beings. Your ignorant approach is neither an "Uncomfortable Truth" or a useful concept. Often the most obstreperous person can be the most productive, but they must be carefully taught in social graces. Even elementary schools have learned that "Everyone work alone!" is not a useful model; the best schools now bring along the slower (or more socially inept) students through consistent and persistent group activity. Only autocrats refuse to work on building viable, productive teams in which a disparate members each contribute in their own ways, but in accordance with a common "culture" of mutual respect.
So, the people who are in pain and reflexively lash out at others...
The people who are screwed up socially and offend others without knowing what they're doing...
The people who have no where to turn and no community to welcome them...
You will turn those people away because they're not playing well with others, because they ruin the "peace, love and pancakes" "viable, productive team" kind of atmosphere that you're going for.
And then, you will pat yourself on the back for being welcoming and inclusive?
No. You just have a different definition of what "elite" means.
If you want a welcoming, inclusive community, you don't get to decide certain elements don't belong and remove them.
If you want to do that, you don't really want a welcoming, inclusive community, what you want is a community of elite according to a set of standards.
So, decide what it is you're choice will be and focus in on it, then everything will become obvious.
Unless you are in a concentration camp, suicidal ideation and behavior is a mental health symptom.
Really? So, say, a terminal cancer patient who's in constant pain and wants to die is not of sound mental health?
Or maybe you'd like to revise that statement and say that there are other conditions besides "concentration camp" where suicide may be a rational response?
You don't need a gun at your nightstand, it's never going to be a matter of seconds that saves you.
You do realize that when you make a statement like that, it takes only a single counterexample to prove you wrong?
Or this: "Police said Henry broke into the house and began to attack Moreno until her daughter, Jayda Milsap, 11, shot Henry twice with a handgun." Now there's a story about kids and guns you probably didn't see on the news. If this mom had kept her gun locked so her daughter couldn't get to it, they both might be dead now.
So I'm sorry to inform you of this, but when it comes to violent crime the world does not work the way you think that it does. When an armed person is suddenly and without prior warning in your home, you are in a combat situation. And in a combat situation, seconds matter.
Whether the risk of being prepared for such a situation does or does not outweigh the risks of having an unlocked gun around depends on your risk of home invasion, who lives in the house, who visits the house, and so on. A universal assessment is impossible. But in making the choice you need to be aware that there is a tremendous selection bias in the stories that are covered in the media: defensive firearms use does not receive nearly the coverage that the accidental shooting of a kid does, but is orders of magnitude more common.
Why would the college have any reason to discipline the students, especially if this is a public college
A fraternity is an officially recognized campus group. On some campuses they even have special housing. Yanking that privilege when the group behaves like a bunch of assholes is not censorship. It's not the same as belonging to Joe Bob's Gaming and Bar-B-Q society which meets every Sunday in Joe Bob's garage.
Chanting about lynching could be seen as a credible threat of violence against African Americans. It is a grey area and would depend on context.
For a student to saying "I don't like black people" is asinine and ignorant...but certainly not a crime and should not be a disciplinary offense. (For a professor or a TA to express such bigotry is a different matter. Still not a crime but a bigot isn't qualified to do that job.)
As a corollary to that point, why are we not allowed to WATCH the video and judge for ourselves?
Who's stopping you? It's here.
Not all speech is protected.
Yes. It is. It amazes me that people still cite Holmes's "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit from Schenck v. United States, where the SCOTUS trampled over Amendment I to criminalize an anti-draft protest.
If you shout "fire" in a theater when there is in fact a fire, you could be a hero. If you're on stage as part of the performance and fire is part of the plot of the play, you can shout "fire!". If shouting "fire" in a theater causes people to get trampled, the fault is on the architects or operators of the theater for not providing adequate exit routes, not the speaker. The only rightful liability someone falsely crying "fire" falsely has is civil, not criminal.
Using anonymous speech to say things that are harmful to OTHERS is cowardly and generally speaking not protected by the First Amendment nor should it.
Speech can only harm a person if it is credible. (E.g., I start a credible rumor about you, your reputation is damaged.) Anonymous speech is not credible.
And there is no exception in the First Amendment for "harmful" speech. Nor should there be. Sometimes speech should be harmful to people. "John Doe broke the law!" is harmful to John Doe, but if it's true it should certainly be protected.
Liberal folks, this is your issue. The conservatives and libertarians are all over preserving the right to speech. Where is your support for the same?
Liberals are by definition "all over preserving the right to speech".
Authoritarian progressives are not.
Authoritarian progressives have taken over some of the political and social organs often associated in popular thought with "liberalism". I think this can be traced back to the 1988 Presidential campaign, when Bush attacked Dukakis as a "card carrying member of the ACLU", and rather than pushing back with "yes, I support civil liberties as enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- you don't? Shame on you!", the Democrats began a retreat from those values.
Feel free to move to North Korea friend,
Right, because the only possible alternative to capitalism is Maoism.
Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals.
Sure, an economic system based on the value and dignity of labor and the idea that the system should be run by and for workers rather than a state-backed aristocratic capitalist class, leads to lounging around all day navel gazing. Obviously.
Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."
There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?
If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.
If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it. It's not like you're alone. But, please don't denigrate the scientific process by claiming that's not what's happening. People are thick enough already...
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.
