> Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of

> Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence. I think people are saying that: - The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words. - The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats. > but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in. If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy". I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."