What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

This is a Beautiful AMERICAN Baby

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
38,068
Reaction score
21,705
Points
1,915
Deal with it, racist swine!

DH8O-ttXkAA20es

ACLU admits to ‘white supremacy’ after tweeting photo of white baby with U.S. flag
 

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,780
Reaction score
8,982
Points
900
Two of my grandsons have fair skin and blonde hair. Does that make me a racist?
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
It's not racist to have an opinion. It's racist to have a racist opinion. Quite simply, opinions aren't racist, people are.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
What's racist or not racist about merely calling th
It's a WHITE baby. That can no longer be allowed to represent America in the eyes of the left.
Oh, f*ck! Spew that sh*t to someone who'll buy into it.

I wish it'd crossed my mind that you'd have some inane remark like that to make. I'd never have posted in this thread.
 
OP
Death Angel

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
38,068
Reaction score
21,705
Points
1,915
Oh, f*ck! Spew that sh*t to someone who'll buy into it.

I wish it'd crossed my mind that you'd have some inane remark like that to make. I'd never have posted in this thread.
Well, what the hell do you think the message is? ACLU even APOLOGIZED. Good Allah the left is dense.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
36,768
Reaction score
25,976
Points
2,905
Location
Arizona
These kinds of blunders just mean more votes for Republicans.

Thanks ACLU c*nts.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
Oh, f*ck! Spew that sh*t to someone who'll buy into it.

I wish it'd crossed my mind that you'd have some inane remark like that to make. I'd never have posted in this thread.
Well, what the hell do you think the message is? ACLU even APOLOGIZED. Good Allah the left is dense.
I'll be honest. I read the article up to this statement, "This is the future that ACLU members want.” Upon getting that far, I thought, what sort of nonsense is this. ACLU members aren't the only adults who would love to be kids again. Who wouldn't? One of the things that maturity teaches one is that, as Franklin (?) said, "youth is wasted on the young."

From there, I returned to the OP, and determined that the comment didn't seem to have much to do with being a kid or allusions to childish naivete or anything else that crossed my mind when I saw the image and caption identified in the article. (I have yet to read the rubric article past the point I above noted. Do I need to?)

I'm not reluctant to call out racism -- overt and subtle forms of it -- when and where I see it. But as I've tacitly pointed out to another member, neither am I going to jump to a conclusion that someone is/isn't racist or that their expression is/isn't one that portends they may be racist/unjustly discriminatory.

So, the ACLU put up a photo of a white kid. Fine. Could they have used a different image, perhaps one having multiple kids of various races? Yes, they could have. But they didn't. Why didn't they? Someone may know, but I don't. If they made the choice they made because they wanted to exclude non-white kids, well, I'd call that a manifestation of racial bias of some sort. If they picked the image they did through pure serendipity, there was no racial bias in the choice. (There are obviously other scenarios I've not described.)

Now, given that the image and caption came from the ACLU, should they have used a more inclusive image? Probably. Is the fact that they didn't an indication of some sort of racial bias/racism? Again, I don't have enough info to know one way or the other.

Insofar as the ACLU is the "speaker," I understand why they were contritely responsive to the criticism they received. I suspect too that like any sage individual/group, they are careful about what battles they bother to fight. The one their critics may conceivably have been bucking for is one that surely doesn't well serve the ACLU to fight. That is quite clear in my mind.

The point is there's a lot I don't know about how they chose that photo. There are, of course, more considerations and possibilities, but hopefully you get the idea. I'll call something what it is when I have a preponderance of information militating for my doing so, but I'm not going to take a position prior to that being so. I think racism and related matter are far too serious to trifle with. I'll neither ignore nor fabricate instances of manifested racism and/or its effects. I think doing so is wrong in many ways.

P.S./Edit:
Yes, I see the potentially racist implications that can be drawn from the image and caption, but I also don't think, given the available information they are credible. Thus I also think one should refrain from airing them, even though one thinks racist undertones may be present, particularly given that the organization involved is the ACLU and not one that has a track record of making actually racist remarks and innuendos. People and organizations do need to be given the "benefit of the doubt" their prior words and deeds have earned them. If they haven't earned any such benefit, well, then it's a different matter.
 
Last edited:

baileyn45

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
4,926
Reaction score
2,593
Points
1,030
Oh, f*ck! Spew that sh*t to someone who'll buy into it.

I wish it'd crossed my mind that you'd have some inane remark like that to make. I'd never have posted in this thread.
Well, what the hell do you think the message is? ACLU even APOLOGIZED. Good Allah the left is dense.
I'll be honest. I read the article up to this statement, "This is the future that ACLU members want.” Upon getting that far, I thought, what sort of nonsense is this. ACLU members aren't the only adults who would love to be kids again. Who wouldn't? One of the things that maturity teaches one is that, as Franklin (?) said, "youth is wasted on the young."

From there, I returned to the OP, and determined that the comment didn't seem to have much to do with being a kid or allusions to childish naivete or anything else that crossed my mind when I saw the image and caption identified in the article. (I have yet to read the rubric article past the point I above noted. Do I need to?)

I'm not reluctant to call out racism -- overt and subtle forms of it -- when and where I see it. But as I've tacitly pointed out to another member, neither am I going to jump to a conclusion that someone is/isn't racist or that their expression is/isn't one that portends they may be racist/unjustly discriminatory.

So, the ACLU put up a photo of a white kid. Fine. Could they have used a different image, perhaps one having multiple kids of various races? Yes, they could have. But they didn't. Why didn't they? Someone may know, but I don't. If they made the choice they made because they wanted to exclude non-white kids, well, I'd call that a manifestation of racial bias of some sort. If they picked the image they did through pure serendipity, there was no racial bias in the choice. (There are obviously other scenarios I've not described.)

Now, given that the image and caption came from the ACLU, should they have used a more inclusive image? Probably. Is the fact that they didn't an indication of some sort of racial bias/racism? Again, I don't have enough info to know one way or the other.

Insofar as the ACLU is the "speaker," I understand why they were contritely responsive to the criticism they received. I suspect too that like any sage individual/group, they are careful about what battles they bother to fight. The one their critics may conceivably have been bucking for is one that surely doesn't well serve the ACLU to fight. That is quite clear in my mind.

The point is there's a lot I don't know about how they chose that photo. There are, of course, more considerations and possibilities, but hopefully you get the idea. I'll call something what it is when I have a preponderance of information militating for my doing so, but I'm not going to take a position prior to that being so. I think racism and related matter are far too serious to trifle with. I'll neither ignore nor fabricate instances of manifested racism and/or its effects. I think doing so is wrong in many ways.

P.S./Edit:
Yes, I see the potentially racist implications that can be drawn from the image and caption, but I also don't think, given the available information they are credible. Thus I also think one should refrain from airing them, even though one thinks racist undertones may be present, particularly given that the organization involved is the ACLU and not one that has a track record of making actually racist remarks and innuendos. People and organizations do need to be given the "benefit of the doubt" their prior words and deeds have earned them. If they haven't earned any such benefit, well, then it's a different matter.
To me seeing anything racist in that picture would be a result of one's own biases. The picture is of a baby in an ACLU onesie, if the first thing that pops into one's mind is the color of the child's skin then someone has a problem projecting their own biases onto a simple picture.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top