William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
Because the aspect of her hair and scalp condition is of much lesser concern.Why is this the aspect you are concerned about?
Because the aspect of her hair and scalp condition is of much lesser concern.Why is this the aspect you are concerned about?
She said what she thought she needed to say to redirect anger to a recognized scapegoat.Her hoax suggests a hatred of whites. She didn't just say that boys cut her hair. She said white boys.
That like saying that America has fake white supremacists who talk-the-talk but don't walk-the-walk because it just isn't inside them.Just because she knows how to deploy the jargon, it doesn't mean that she has internalized the bigotry.
I certainly don't.That like saying that America has fake white supremacists who talk-the-talk but don't walk-the-walk because it just isn't inside them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't justify skipping any counseling that would explore the question of her possibly being racist. I think Darat calls it "re-education", or something like that.
You might want to sit down for this:
Even though it turned out that this girl lied, white racists are still a massive problem in both the US and the western world in general.
Something that is not in dispute in this thread. Let's stick to the story being discussed.
As was your 'grand reveal'.![]()
That seems like an odd thing for a skeptic to say.
Shouldn't the media question what they are told?
Her hoax suggests a hatred of whites. She didn't just say that boys cut her hair. She said white boys.
Lol. Look at you, pretending to be a skeptic.
This problem seems to have corrected itself; I find the ending satisfactory.
Dos she have a history of hating whites?
Making up a racial crime has a racial element by definition. That doesn't mean it has a racist element.That's unfair. Racism doesn't require a history.
The idea that making up a racial crime inherently has a racial element to it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing we should even have to really even have to argue about.
When they have a positive reason to, yes. As a default response to any claim? No, that would be actively harmful. Neither we nor the media needs to 9/11-Trutherize every single thing anybody tells them.
That like saying that America has fake white supremacists who talk-the-talk but don't walk-the-walk because it just isn't inside them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't justify skipping any counseling that would explore the question of her possibly being racist. I think Darat calls it "re-education", or something like that.