It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The chant was in reference to the rape allegations against Florida St. quarterback Jameis Winston.
Or maybe the players chanting "no means no" with the tomahawk chop were making a statement about STOPPING Jameis Winston from scoring on the field and winning the game.
White guys accused of raping black girl? Front page every day.
don't like Obama's policies? You must be a racist.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jamie1
In you opening paragraph you state…
The chant was in reference to the rape allegations against Florida St. quarterback Jameis Winston.
I agree with you. But then you say…
Or maybe the players chanting "no means no" with the tomahawk chop were making a statement about STOPPING Jameis Winston from scoring on the field and winning the game.
Neither of these suggestions have anything to do with race.
originally posted by: KeliOnyx
a reply to: Jamie1
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a sportsmanship issue. And there is a vast difference. The argument would have been considerably different had the players started the game chanting or wearing tshirts or whatever. Instead what we have is poor sportsmanship by the winning team. Their chant had nothing to do with protesting the handling of incident and everything to do with rubbing salt in the wound of the team that just lost. Raising awareness or demanding action wasn't the purpose of the chant.
Incorrect.
Continuing to say that he's punishing them because of what they thought is projecting your own thoughts and opinions into the coach's head.
Chanting "No means no" is not on anyone's list of 'Evil things to do'. The thought/intent motivating the behavior is what's being punished.
So far every comment he's had on the issue is that he's going to punish the behavior and not the thought behind the behavior.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jamie1
The quote in the article of the OP is taken out of context and is only half what the coach said in response to questions concerning what happened. The left out part is that the coach said he "is aware of inappropriate behavior post-game."
Continuing to say that he's punishing them because of what they thought is projecting your own thoughts and opinions into the coach's head. So far every comment he's had on the issue is that he's going to punish the behavior and not the thought behind the behavior.
One target, white police, is an approved target. The other, a black QB accused of rape, is disapproved. If the intent of the action is to criticize white police, it's ok. If it's to criticize a black QB, it's not ok.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
The school has an entire clause of it's student athlete code of conduct dedicated to unsportsmanlike behavior. I would say taunting an opponent on national television after winning a bowl game falls under unsportsmanlike behavior.