Jump to content

Racial Slur at BYU Game - Real or Hoax?


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is also a huge vacuum of information about this case. Smac’s news articles are more an admission that we know almost nothing and everyone is trying to fill in the holes with something.

I want to know more about the banned guy. One dubious report has him following her back to the van and saying something that isn’t well described. Somehow this became the person was banned for saying the original slurs. Isn’t it more likely the fan was banned for what they said to the person later by the bus? There seems to be a big lack of journalistic curiosity here.

I’m guessing you didn’t read through the exhaustive original post, because if you did you’d understand the reason why the young man was banned for life was because he approached Richardson after the game and in some way made her “feel uncomfortable.” According to Richardson’s blatantly anti-white Godmother, Lesa Pamplin, Richardson actually felt fearful because the banned individual supposedly threatened her with harm when he said, “you’d better watch your back.”

If this does turn out to be another Jussie Smolett type hoax, it’s very likely Richardson was emboldened to pull off her deceitful stunt because she was very confident the woke multitudes would continue to strongly back her, whether she told the truth or not, based on the widespread belief among woke progressives that the “Mormon church” is endemically racist and deserves to be condemned on general principles alone, even if Richardson is spewing a nothing but a pack of lies. In other words, to the woke mob it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not Richardson is lying because BYU is only getting what it richly deserves.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If this does turn out to be another Jussie Smolett type hoax, it’s very likely Richardson was emboldened to pull off her deceitful stunt because she knew the woke multitudes would continue to strongly back her, whether she told the truth or not, based on the widespread belief among woke progressives that the “Mormon church” is endemically racist and deserves to be condemned on general principles alone, even if Richardson is spewing a nothing but a pack of lies. In other words, to the woke mob it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not Richardson is lying because BYU is only getting what it richly deserves.

If you remove her godmother from the equation, what do you have from Richardson stating Mormons/whites are racists?  Richardson is not her godmother and shouldn’t be judged by what the other woman said.

I have no doubt that Richardson has had that racial slur thrown out at her before even if not at volleyball games (which from what I hear don’t typically draw that big of crowds), so it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the reason why her brain heard that particular pattern in the mass of noise.

As far as the fan goes, it was stated by an observer (I am not going to dig out to see what the official boot was for, if so,women wants to quote it, that would be great) that he was not banned for any racial slurs because there was never any evidence solidly linking him to them, at most they had a possible voice identification. The official complaint was approaching a guest team after the game; apparently this is a no no.  Likely would have simply be booted at that time, depending on if he resisted maybe something more serious.  The assumption he was the one shouting slurs I am guessing got him banned for good.  But the rule broken sounds like it doesn’t even matter if something is said, you just don’t try to approach guest teams.  I would like to see the rule in writing or if unwritten, the history of it explained, but given the behaviour of some fans after losses or even wins, I think it a wise rule.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, I thought it very well written with great points.

One problem is that many of us who aren't BYU fans believed the Duke player and started using it to roast the school, fans, and sports teams.  Now we feel foolish falling for her story before all the facts came out.  If she would have stopped her story after her initial complaint after the second set, she would still have the benefit of the doubt.  Unfortunately, she then claimed she heard the slurs all during the 4th set.  After the game, she claimed BYU did nothing after she reported the incidence.  But she didn't seem to realize that BYU sent the 4 ushers, a police officer AND a Duke administrator into the crowd for the sole purpose of listening for racial slurs.  They heard none and they were closer to the fans then she was.  Then she positively identified the fan who shouted the slurs who turned out to be innocent.

Of course, if she comes out and provides more information (for example, "the BYU fans were telepathically shouting racial slurs!!!"), I'll go back to believing her again.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you remove her godmother from the equation, what do you have from Richardson stating Mormons/whites are racists?  Richardson is not her godmother and shouldn’t be judged by what the other woman said.

I have no doubt that Richardson has had that racial slur thrown out at her before even if not at volleyball games (which from what I hear don’t typically draw that big of crowds), so it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the reason why her brain heard that particular pattern in the mass of noise.

As far as the fan goes, it was stated by an observer (I am not going to dig out to see what the official boot was for, if so,women wants to quote it, that would be great) that he was not banned for any racial slurs because there was never any evidence solidly linking him to them, at most they had a possible voice identification. The official complaint was approaching a guest team after the game; apparently this is a no no.  Likely would have simply be booted at that time, depending on if he resisted maybe something more serious.  The assumption he was the one shouting slurs I am guessing got him banned for good.  But the rule broken sounds like it doesn’t even matter if something is said, you just don’t try to approach guest teams.  I would like to see the rule in writing or if unwritten, the history of it explained, but given the behaviour of some fans after losses or even wins, I think it a wise rule.

He was banned for approaching the player after the game.  He mistakenly thought she was a friend of his on the BYU team (Duke's colors are also blue and white so it was easy to get confused).  In the video, he is standing by the exit so I'm guessing the players had to pass by him to get to the locker room.  I haven't heard anyone else besides the player claim to have heard him threaten her with the "you better watch your back" comment. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well, at his billing rate as an attorney, it is very easy to determine what the cost of that post actually was....

Substance free cheap shot.  (And I wouldn't remove this even if you were to remove the original post.)

Link to comment
14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If this is indeed another race hoax, a-la Jussie Smolett’s deceitful and cynical quest for heroic status and glory, then the most likely reason why Pamplin and Richardson thought they could successfully’ ‘pull it off’ is because they believed they could count on the widespread and unfair stereotyping among the woke progressives that the Latter-Day Saints are hateful, hardwired racists who will protect and cover for each other as they carry out their crimes of hate.

Dude Get help.  Please.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Dare I say it’s obvious that you’re spending much more time wasting your life away on this board than I am? Also, are you so naive that you believe only conservatives can be Machiavellian connivers, and that all woke progressives are unassailable in their actions and as pure as the wind driven snow in their motives? 

Define woke please. Just another right wing pejorative that really means nothing.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It doesn’t require a full treatise to see we’re basically on the same page:

I was writing to myself as much as to you.  

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

let the school investigate and see what they find. 

BYUPD is no longer investigating this matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Define woke please.

See here:

Quote

Slang is almost always older than you think. English speakers have been calling stylish people “fly” since at least 1953. Though it’s everywhere now, the first known use of OMG goes back to 1917. And the Oxford English Dictionary’s latest update shows that the same is true of woke: The term, which has spread virally in recent years after being embraced by the Black Lives Matter movement, has been used to describe those who are aware since the early 1960s.

Here’s how the OED defines it.

 

woke, adjective: Originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice; frequently in stay woke.

The OED added that word, along with scores of others, in its quarterly update this June. Before editors add any word, they dig to find the earliest examples they can of it being used.

Long before the word woke had anything to do with issues of inequality, some were using it to simply mean awake, says Katherine Martin, head of Oxford’s U.S. dictionaries. She gives the example of an event held in Harlem in the 1920s, which ran from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m., called the “Stay Woke Ball.” By the 1960s, people had begun using the word to signal a more figurative sense of being awakened, referring to those who are aware or well-informed.

And here:

Quote

Woke (/ˈwk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing were coined to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine change. By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a slur, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context.[1][2]

 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Just another right wing pejorative that really means nothing.

The "right wing" didn't create the word or the concept.  They criticize and ridicule it, apparently to substantial effect.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

Linguist Ben Zimmer writes that with mainstream currency, the term's "original grounding in African-American political consciousness has been obscured".[13] The Economist states that as the term came to be used more to describe white people active on social media, black activists "criticised the performatively woke for being more concerned with internet point-scoring than systemic change".[19] Journalist Amanda Hess says social media accelerated the word's cultural appropriation,[26] writing, "The conundrum is built in. When white people aspire to get points for consciousness, they walk right into the cross hairs between allyship and appropriation."[7][26] Hess calls woke "a back-pat from the left, a way of affirming the sensitive".[26]

Writer and activist Chloé Valdary has stated that the concept of being woke is a "double-edged sword" that can "alert people to systemic injustice" while also being "an aggressive, performative take on progressive politics that only makes things worse".[4] Social-justice scholars Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith, in their 2019 book Stay Woke: A People's Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter, argue against what they term as "Woker-than-Thou-itis: Striving to be educated around issues of social justice is laudable and moral, but striving to be recognized by others as a woke individual is self-serving and misguided."[39][40][41] 

...

The term woke has gained popularity amid an increasing leftward turn on various issues among the American left; this has partly been a reaction to the right-wing politics of U.S. President Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016, but also to a growing awareness regarding the extent of historical discrimination faced by African Americans.[42] According to Perry Bacon Jr., ideas that have come to be associated with "wokeness" include a rejection of American exceptionalism; a belief that the United States has never been a true democracy; that people of color suffer from systemic and institutional racism; that white Americans experience white privilege; that African Americans deserve reparations for slavery and post-enslavement discrimination; that disparities among racial groups, for instance in certain professions or industries, are automatic evidence of discrimination; that U.S. law enforcement agencies are designed to discriminate against people of color and so should be defunded, disbanded, or heavily reformed; that women suffer from systemic sexism; that individuals should be able to identify with any gender or none; that U.S. capitalism is deeply flawed; and that Trump's election to the presidency was not an aberration but a reflection of the prejudices about people of color held by large parts of the U.S. population.[42] 

...

The impact of woke sentiment on society has been criticised from various perspectives. In 2018, the British political commentator Andrew Sullivan described the "Great Awokening", describing it as a "cult of social justice on the left, a religion whose followers show the same zeal as any born-again Evangelical [Christian]" and who "punish heresy by banishing sinners from society or coercing them to public demonstrations of shame".[32] In 2021, the British filmmaker and DJ Don Letts suggested that "in a world so woke you can't make a joke", it was difficult for young artists to make protest music without being accused of cultural appropriation.[43] By 2019 the term woke was increasingly being used in an ironic sense, reflected in two books published that year: Brendan O'Neill's Anti-Woke and the comedian Andrew Doyle's Woke, written as his fictional character Titania McGrath.[44]

...

Among conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult.[1][4][46] In this pejorative sense, woke means "following an intolerant and moralising ideology".[19] British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock "overrighteous liberalism".[47] Romano says that on the American right, "'woke' – like its cousin 'canceled' – bespeaks 'political correctness' gone awry".[4]

Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically,[4][48] implying that "wokeness" is an insincere form of performative activism.[46][4] Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems.[48] Linguist and social critic John McWhorter argues that the history of woke is similar to that of politically correct, another term once used self-descriptively by the left which was appropriated by the right as an insult, in a process similar to the euphemism treadmill.[2]

The term has come to have a pretty heavy ironic /sarcastic / pejorative meaning, but not just from the "right."  Andrew Sullivan, quoted above, is hardly on the "right."  Bill Maher.  Quentin Tarantino.  Plenty of others.

This November 2021 opinion piece in the NY Times is interesting:

Quote

Perhaps no other word of the moment is so under attack as “woke,” a word born as a simple yet powerful way of saying: “Be aware of and alert to how racism is systemic and pervasive and suffuses American life. Wake up from the slumber of ignorance and passive acceptance.”

 

But because of its petit power, this small word was a prime candidate for co-option, for being turned against the people who used it. The opponents of wokeness — whether they be conservatives who believe it injures the ideal of America as inherently good, or moderate Democrats worried that it handicaps their electoral prospects — want to kill it.

Republicans want to recast “wokeness” as progressive politics run amok, and many establishment Democrats shrink from the term because they either believe that Republicans have succeeded at the task, or, of even more concern, they agree with those Republicans.

Being awake to and aware of how our systems of power operate creates enemies across the political spectrum because wokeness indicts both Republicans and Democrats alike. Wokeness indicts the status quo.

And so, wokeness has been referred to in the most hyperbolic language imaginable, from ideology to religion to cult. It has been so derided and adulterated that young people who are what one would have called woke five years ago no longer even use the term.

Perhaps nothing helps to illustrate the chasm between moderates and progressives as well as a skirmish last week between the Democratic strategist James Carville and the Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

 

On “PBS NewsHour,” Carville was asked what went wrong with the Democratic Party to enable Glenn Youngkin to win “53 percent of suburban voters in Virginia,” when only last year Donald Trump won just 45 percent.

“Well, what went wrong is this stupid wokeness,” Carville responded. Broadening his response to races in cities across the country, he blamed the “defund the police lunacy” and said “some of these people need to go to a woke detox center or something.”

Carville is not on the right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The school apparently is. 

I don't repose much trust in the competency of administrative staff "investigating" much of anything.  They aren't law enforcement.  Legal counsel may get involved, though.  I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

I don't repose much trust in the competency of administrative staff "investigating" much of anything.  They aren't law enforcement.  Legal counsel may get involved, though.  I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

I suppose I have more trust in BYU than I do in various media personalities. YMMV

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "right wing" didn't create the word or the concept.  They criticize and ridicule it, apparently to substantial effect. 

The right wing uses it as a pejorative and distorts it just like they did with political correctness and other terms they like to use. And often when they criticize and ridicule it they do so in a dishonest or uneducated way just like they do the term socialist. Such communications do little to foster reasonable dialogue. The left does it as well but the right seemt to try to be making it a hateful level of art.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose I have more trust in BYU than I do in various media personalities. YMMV

I like BYU just fine.  And I don't begrudge the administration their jobs.  It's a tough gig.

But I think the rush to placate Duke was problematic.  The banning of the UVU student was unfair and should be reversed.  BYUPD handing the investigation off to the administration seems problematic given that this takes it (the investigation) outside the realm of government records requests.  If BYUPD is handing this off so as to frustrate such requests, I find that troubling.

I also think that BYU ought to publish its findings, whatever they are.  This has been hashed out in the public sphere, and BYU has taken a serious drubbing.  The individual decisionmakers at BYU need to have both the gumption to apologize for misbehavior, but also - if the investigation yields bupkis - stand up and defend BYU against apparently false allegations - or at least be clear that the investigation did not yield any evidence supporting the Duke player's accusations.  I also think BYU should publicly retract their banning of the UVU guy. 

If we are going to have a "long discussion" about race, it ought to include addressing all the uncomfortable aspects of it, including racebaiting and race hoaxes.

Consider this interview of Wilfred Reilly, author of Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like BYU just fine.  And I don't begrudge the administration their jobs.  It's a tough gig.

But I think the rush to placate Duke was problematic.  The banning of the UVU student was unfair and should be reversed.  BYUPD handing the investigation off to the administration seems problematic given that this takes it (the investigation) outside the realm of government records requests.  If BYUPD is handing this off so as to frustrate such requests, I find that troubling.

I also think that BYU ought to publish its findings, whatever they are.  This has been hashed out in the public sphere, and BYU has taken a serious drubbing.  The individual decisionmakers at BYU need to have both the gumption to apologize for misbehavior, but also - if the investigation yields bupkis - stand up and defend BYU against apparently false allegations - or at least be clear that the investigation did not yield any evidence supporting the Duke player's accusations.  I also think BYU should publicly retract their banning of the UVU guy. 

If we are going to have a "long discussion" about race, it ought to include addressing all the uncomfortable aspects of it, including racebaiting and race hoaxes.

Consider this interview of Wilfred Reilly, author of Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m just saying there’s not enough information for me to reach a conclusion, no matter how many YouTube videos you post. I hope BYU gets to the bottom of this and acts appropriately. For now, I’m willing to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt until I have more solid information. Shouting “leftist race hoax” doesn’t do anything to determine what happened. 

Link to comment

Yes, racism, and using the n-word is wrong; it is bad; it is evil; people shouldn't engage in in racism and they shouldn't use the n-word.  I hope that's clear enough.  The last time I heard anyone use the n-word (and I didn't hear the actual use, I just heard reports that the person used the word) is when "celebrity chef" Paula Deen was reported to have used it in 2013.  Prior to that, the last time I heard any reports of anyone using the n-word is when former LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman, who investigated the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, was accused during OJ Simpson's trial in the mid 1990s of having used it.  (For the record, I think anyone who does use it is stupid ... or at least that doing so is stupid ... and you can quote me on that.)

Yet, now, I'm supposed to believe that the n-word rained down on Rachel Richardson and on her Black teammates ("clearly and distinctly," even though it came from a mob) like the excrement of a thousand pigeons ... Now, granted, it's possible that I've simply lived a sheltered life.  My hearing isn't the best, so perhaps people use it in my presence all the time and I'm simply unaware of it.  (I spend much of my time alone, and in fairly solitary pursuits, anyway, so I suppose if anyone were to use it in my presence, that person would be ... me :  And if I'm using it, I guess I'm just going to have to sit down and have a serious talk with myself.)

What's my point?  If we Utahns are racists, mostly, we suck at it.  We're going to have to up our game.  ("But Ken!  There are micro-aggressions ... and micro-micro-aggressions ... and micro-micro-micro-aggressions ..."  Okay.  Well, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that extreme-mini-micro-aggressions are well above my paygrade, and I'm just going to have to let the psychologists and the sociologists worry about those ... :unknw: :huh: )

If, tomorrow, Rachel Richardson were to confess that, actually, she made the whole thing up (a la Jussie Smollett), still, people would attempt to justify her on the basis that even if slandering an entire gym (a cracker box gym, but an entire gym nonetheless) full to overflowing with fans and students (at least some of whom, surely, notwithstanding their admittedly perhaps-miniscule minority status, are Black????????) is wrong, she was just trying to start a needed conversation about race.  If everything is racist, then nothing is, and if everyone is racist, then no one is.

Sure, she might've gone about it in a way that is wrong or misguided, but we should laud her for her courage anyway.  But if the purported "starting point" of any "needed conversation about race" is that the United States, or Utah, or Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no different vis-a-vis race in 2022 than any of those institutions were in 1962, frankly, for me (and I'm sure this is nothing more than a personal moral failing or a personal character defect) that's a non-starter.  (And, by the way, that's the same problem I have with BLM: As noble as the organization's aims might be, it seems as though it is determined to fight battles that, already, have been won.  It is as though the courageous actions of thousands (indeed, of millions) of people who have come before it mean nothing.)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m just saying there’s not enough information for me to reach a conclusion, 

That's fine.  I've seen enough to push me off the fence.  If and when evidence supporting Richardson's accusations, I will reconsider.

The thing is, however, nobody seems to be coming forward with evidence to support her narrative.  I find that . . . telling.

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

no matter how many YouTube videos you post.

I've posted a lot more than YouTube videos.

Here's another resource: Hate HOAX? Did the accused BYU fan really yell racial slurs at a Duke volleyball player?

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I hope BYU gets to the bottom of this and acts appropriately. For now, I’m willing to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt until I have more solid information. Shouting “leftist race hoax” doesn’t do anything to determine what happened. 

I'm not shouting.  I'm giving that angle some attention, as I think that is where the evidence is taking us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, racism, and using the n-word is wrong; it is bad; it is evil; people shouldn't engage in in racism and they shouldn't use the n-word.  I hope that's clear enough.  The last time I heard anyone use the n-word (and I didn't hear the actual use, I just heard reports that the person used the word) is when "celebrity chef" Paula Deen was reported to have used it in 2013.  Prior to that, the last time I heard any reports of anyone using the n-word is when former LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman, who investigated the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, was accused during OJ Simpson's trial in the mid 1990s of having used it.  (For the record, I think anyone who does use it is stupid ... or at least that doing so is stupid ... and you can quote me on that.)

Yet, now, I'm supposed to believe that the n-word rained down on Rachel Richardson and on her Black teammates ("clearly and distinctly," even though it came from a mob) like the excrement of a thousand pigeons ... Now, granted, it's possible that I've simply lived a sheltered life.  My hearing isn't the best, so perhaps people use it in my presence all the time and I'm simply unaware of it.  (I spend much of my time alone, and in fairly solitary pursuits, anyway, so I suppose if anyone were to use it in my presence, that person would be ... me :  And if I'm using it, I guess I'm just going to have to sit down and have a serious talk with myself.)

What's my point?  If we Utahns are racists, mostly, we suck at it.  We're going to have to up our game.  ("But Ken!  There are micro-aggressions ... and micro-micro-aggressions ... and micro-micro-micro-aggressions ..."  Okay.  Well, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that extreme-mini-micro-aggressions are well above my paygrade, and I'm just going to have to let the psychologists and the sociologists worry about those ... :unknw: :huh: )

If, tomorrow, Rachel Richardson were to confess that, actually, she made the whole thing up (a la Jussie Smollett), still, people would attempt to justify her on the basis that even if slandering an entire gym (a cracker box gym, but an entire gym nonetheless) full to overflowing with fans and students (at least some of whom, surely, notwithstanding their perhaps-miniscule minority status, are Black????????) is wrong, she was just trying to start a needed conversation about race. 

Sure, she might've gone about it in a way that is wrong or misguided, but we should laud her for her courage anyway.  But if the purported "starting point" of any "needed conversation about race" is that the United States, or Utah, or Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no different vis-a-vis race in 2022 than any of those institutions were in 1962, frankly, for me (and I'm sure this is nothing more than a personal moral failing or a personal character defect) that's a non-starter.  (And, by the way, that's the same problem I have with BLM: It is as though the courageous actions of thousands (indeed, of millions) of people who have come before it mean nothing.)

I have to say that when I first read this story, I was reminded of a very good friend of mine who said she was surprised I would go to BYU. I asked what she meant, and she told me that only 3 times in her life had she heard racist taunts from sports fans, and all 3 times it was BYU fans when BYU played her school. I’ve been to a lot of BYU sporting events and have never heard racist taunts. But I believe my friend, and no matter how much I apologize and explain this behavior is out of the norm, it’s how she has experienced BYU fans. I talked to her last week and told her this incident reminded me of her experiences. She said she was sorry that things like this still happen, but it fit with the BYU fans she had encountered.  That makes me deeply sad as a BYU graduate and one who still loves the school. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's fine.  I've seen enough to push me off the fence.  If and when evidence supporting Richardson's accusations, I will reconsider.

The thing is, however, nobody seems to be coming forward with evidence to support her narrative.  I find that . . . telling.

I've posted a lot more than YouTube videos.

Here's another resource: Hate HOAX? Did the accused BYU fan really yell racial slurs at a Duke volleyball player?

I'm not shouting.  I'm giving that angle some attention, as I think that is where the evidence is taking us.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know you have taken a side. I just think it’s premature. 

Link to comment

@jkwilliams

Yeah, well, what do I  know?  I went to a really racist school, a school that has to have been racist because its very name used to contain a geographic descriptor that, often, is used to refer to the southern United States, and, therefore, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, is racist.

Link to comment

South Carolina lawmakers seek answers from Gamecocks after women's basketball series with BYU canceled | Fox News

"Given the totality of the circumstances, it seems the University of South Carolina rushed to appease the loudest voices of the far-Left by 'canceling' BYU, both literally and figuratively, without respect for the truth. If our citizens are to have faith in our public institutions, then they must not kowtow to counterfeit outrage. Doing so only hurts and weakens those who have been truly harmed by bigotry and discrimination," the letter read.

"It is our opinion the University acted arbitrarily and capriciously without consideration or regard for the facts and circumstances. This begs many questions, chief among them, why did the University of South Carolina cancel the series against BYU when no supporting evidence existed to warrant such action? Will the University of South Carolina reschedule with BYU and issue a public apology if the allegations continue to be shown as false? Is it now the policy of the University to forgo, or more concerning, ignore any fact-finding missions into allegations of wrongdoing? Will the University be canceling all sporting events whenever any fan of any university against which the Gamecocks have an upcoming game is accused of acting inappropriately? Is the University of South Carolina now taking responsibility for all of its fans, regardless of any relationship with the University? What is the policy of the University of South Carolina for canceling games in which allegations of wrongdoing by a future opposing school’s fans are made? And finally, will the University of South Carolina decline any games with Duke University given the verifiable racially insensitive tweets by a member of Duke’s fan base, Mrs. Pamplin?"

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...