Hit Piece
-
But he was intimidating real live children on the forefront of integration efforts.
That’s far more salient than wearing blackface at a party full of white upper middle class professionals in the 90s
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:42 last edited by George Khe was intimidating real live children
Presumably because he associated with these asshats, at age 14 - when he was a child.
more salient than wearing blackface at a party full of white upper middle class professionals in the 90s
As opposed to trying to legislate to avoid a racial jungle with real live children.
If you accept the fact that he's a racist bully, then you have to accept the racist senator. And that wasn't 65 years ago, it was 45 years ago.
ETA re' "upper middle class professionals": So racism is OK when it's the right audience?
-
But he was intimidating real live children on the forefront of integration efforts.
That’s far more salient than wearing blackface at a party full of white upper middle class professionals in the 90s
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:45 last edited byBut he was intimidating real live children on the forefront of integration efforts.
That’s far more salient than wearing blackface at a party full of white upper middle class professionals in the 90s
Do you believe that the photo indicates something negative about the character of Mr Jones?
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:47 last edited by jon-nyc
I love you buddy but your partisanship is blinding you here.
Physically stopping black kids from entering a school in the 1950s is substantially different from opposing bussing in the 70s or wearing a politically incorrect costume in the 90s or aughts.
To say otherwise is to say there has been no racial progress in the last 7 decades.
That’s not to say he should be canceled (he was 14 and brought up by southerners after all) but surely some genuine contrition is in order (which I don’t doubt would be sincere).
-
I love you buddy but your partisanship is blinding you here.
Physically stopping black kids from entering a school in the 1950s is substantially different from opposing bussing in the 70s or wearing a politically incorrect costume in the 90s or aughts.
To say otherwise is to say there has been no racial progress in the last 7 decades.
That’s not to say he should be canceled (he was 14 and brought up by southerners after all) but surely some genuine contrition is in order (which I don’t doubt would be sincere).
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:53 last edited byPhysically stopping black kids from entering a school in the 1950s is substantially different
Show the photo where he's stopping them. He's at least 7 feet away, and he's standing there. The kid with the cigarette in his mouth is being physical. The kid, smiling behind him, might be physical. Jones, 3 rows back, in the LAST row of the group? Nah.
If you want to talk about intimidation, that's fine. We can talk about election interference too (Black Panthers in Philly).
some genuine contrition is in order
...If it can be shown he did something wrong other than show up and associate with asshats.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:55 last edited by
In a larger sense what pisses me off is the relentless pursuit of dragging up behaviors from half a century ago, or more, to find something to condemn someone with whom you disagree.
-
But he was intimidating real live children on the forefront of integration efforts.
That’s far more salient than wearing blackface at a party full of white upper middle class professionals in the 90s
Do you believe that the photo indicates something negative about the character of Mr Jones?
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 00:58 last edited byI’ll repeat my first post.
Even assuming it’s true [that he was just there to watch], do you think the black children were aware of the distinction? Or did his presence just make the antagonistic white crowd a little more intimidating?
-
I’ll repeat my first post.
Even assuming it’s true [that he was just there to watch], do you think the black children were aware of the distinction? Or did his presence just make the antagonistic white crowd a little more intimidating?
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 01:04 last edited by kluursI’ll repeat my first post.
Even assuming it’s true [that he was just there to watch], do you think the black children were aware of the distinction? Or did his presence just make the antagonistic white crowd a little more intimidating?
He'd have to have been prenaturalyl woke to have recognized that his presence would appear to be condoning the behavior.
Similarly, every male treen pre2000 who copped a feel without a positive assent prior to the interaction could now be judged as having assaulted someone.
We cannot know his intent - but I generally don't want to get too excited about non-violent behavior or speech said by kids prior to the adulthood.
-
I’ll repeat my first post.
Even assuming it’s true [that he was just there to watch], do you think the black children were aware of the distinction? Or did his presence just make the antagonistic white crowd a little more intimidating?
He'd have to have been prenaturalyl woke to have recognized that his presence would appear to be condoning the behavior.
Similarly, every male treen pre2000 who copped a feel without a positive assent prior to the interaction could now be judged as having assaulted someone.
We cannot know his intent - but I generally don't want to get too excited about non-violent behavior or speech said by kids prior to the adulthood.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 01:08 last edited by
He wasn't active in the melee. It was something happening at his school and he was 14. And curious.
In 1957.
What a stretch of horseshit, for the people who printed it and for the dumbasses like Jon who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 01:13 last edited by
It is, of course and transparently, immoral to be joining in with the opportunistic shaming over this photo.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 03:32 last edited by Doctor Phibes
Half of America was racist as fuck back then. I don’t really understand the outrage, unless we’re trying to deny that half of America was racist as fuck.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 15:44 last edited by
When the entire country was undergoing a personality shift regarding race, and road maps for going about it would have been ludicrous, why do we expect a 14-year-old kid to have gotten it perfect?
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 17:38 last edited by
This isn’t presentism. Most of the country and indeed the world new it was immoral at the time. Eisenhower sent the fucking 101st Airborne for fuck sake.
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
-
This isn’t presentism. Most of the country and indeed the world new it was immoral at the time. Eisenhower sent the fucking 101st Airborne for fuck sake.
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 17:51 last edited by -
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 18:02 last edited by
In 50 years we will be cancelling people because they were pro-choice during the 20th century.
And so we should.
-
This isn’t presentism. Most of the country and indeed the world new it was immoral at the time. Eisenhower sent the fucking 101st Airborne for fuck sake.
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 18:45 last edited by HoraceThis isn’t presentism.
Lol
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
You can be as contrite as you want to be. So go be contrite somewhere. Maybe you can have a tea party with some elderly white progressive women where you apologize to each other for slavery and talk about your cats.
-
This isn’t presentism. Most of the country and indeed the world new it was immoral at the time. Eisenhower sent the fucking 101st Airborne for fuck sake.
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 19:08 last edited byThis isn’t presentism. Most of the country and indeed the world new it was immoral at the time. Eisenhower sent the fucking 101st Airborne for fuck sake.
I don’t think he should be canceled but my god a little contrition would be nice.
Bullshit.
The whole point of the article is "Jones is racist because he won't hire a black head coach". Lemmee 'splain something Lucy...If a black coach is good enough, Jones or any other owner will give him consideration.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2022, 19:20 last edited by
Mr Jones is at the helm of several large organizations. Head coach of his football team is a single position of leadership among many. Would anybody care to guess whether people of color are in fact represented among that class of leaders through his organizations?