Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[operative]

Jumping around so far; enjoyable as always.

But when someone points out and condemns something that someone espouses, it is not a witch hunt. If someone fabricates quotes (eg the false quotes ascribed to Rush Limbaugh when he was pursuing purchasing the Rams), or in some other way misrepresents or induces the misrepresentation of someone's beliefs, then that is a witch hunt. Merely pointing out that Piven endorses political violence, which she does, and stating that that is an awful view, which it is, is simply not a witch hunt.

[harkin]

Glenn's complete inability to admit the culpability of Cloward, Piven and The Nation is pathetic. Nice try John and keep fighting the good fight.

Originally Posted by operative

Jumping around so far; enjoyable as always.

But when someone points out and condemns something that someone espouses, it is not a witch hunt. If someone fabricates quotes (eg the false quotes ascribed to Rush Limbaugh.

It only took Rachel Maddow four+ months to apologize for her use of false quotes smearing Limbaugh. BJKeefe parrots her ultra-weak mea culpa with the same mud about his 'other' racist rantings which always end up being innocuous in context. She was perfectly happy to allow the smear about awarding James Earl Ray a medal of honor to go out there, it's what they do on the left. These people never give up - I still hear Rush being blamed for the Barack the magic negro line when all he did was point out a very funny piece in the LA Times.

The liberals never seem to grasp the fact that if Limbaugh was such a bigoted racist, why would they have to keep making up quotes?

Originally Posted by operative

Merely pointing out that Piven endorses political violence, which she does, and stating that that is an awful view, which it is, is simply not a witch hunt.

How dare you use Piven's own words against her.

"An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union"

But at least you're better at sourcing quotes than MSNBC. lol

Your lies are getting more pathetic by the day, oppie. I'm not sure who you think you're influencing on this site.

Got that? How dare you shatter the CW here, esp with facts.

Comedy gold.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

It only took Rachel Maddow four+ months to apologize for her use of false quotes smearing Limbaugh.

I wonder how long it will take her to retract what she said about the Wisconsin budget being pefectly fine.

I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually! Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.

She didn't get close last night but instead continued her smear campaign against Scott Walker. Maybe when she's ready she and Ed Shultz could do a joint apology. They could make it a special event and call it The Rachel and Ed Come Clean Show.

Ezra Klein did an very weak apology at the end of his original column but the damage had already been done. Somehow I bet he knew that would be the case.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by harkin

It only took Rachel Maddow four+ months to apologize for her use of false quotes smearing Limbaugh. BJKeefe parrots her ultra-weak mea culpa ...

Two lies. I never said anything about Maddow, and I never said anything about an apology.

Originally Posted by harkin

... the magic negro ...

Bet you loved the excuse to type that again. Pretty sad.

[Starwatcher162536]

Thought Experiment: What if the confederate states had not left the Union because of the slavery question, but instead left over something else not viewed so negatively today, such as import taxes on "widgets". Would it be then okay to celebrate the confederacy?

My own opinion is that it is okay to admire a person, idea, or institution for attribute X even if said person, idea, or institution had attributes Y and Z that are today viewed as deplorable. When judging people from the past you must judge them using a baseline of what was normal at the time.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

Thought Experiment: What if the confederate states had not left the Union because of the slavery question, but instead left over something else not viewed so negatively today, such as import taxes on "widgets". Would it be then okay to celebrate the confederacy?

Thought experiment: What if Hitler had not tried to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews, but instead did something else not viewed so negatively today, such as import taxes on "widgets". Would it be then okay to celebrate the Third Reich?

My own opinion is that it is okay ...

Your opinion needs more thought.

[Starwatcher162536]

Your opinion needs more thought.

How convincing!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

How convincing!

Sorry, Star, but your hypothetical was too ridiculous to discuss beyond that. [Added: And the counterexample I gave.]

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

Thought Experiment: What if the confederate states had not left the Union because of the slavery question, but instead left over something else not viewed so negatively today, such as import taxes on "widgets". Would it be then okay to celebrate the confederacy?

My own opinion is that it is okay to admire a person, idea, or institution for attribute X even if said person, idea, or institution had attributes Y and Z that are today viewed as deplorable. When judging people from the past you must judge them using a baseline of what was normal at the time.

What's the point you're trying to get at here? Whether it's OK to celebrate secession? That seems to be the point of your hypothetical, but it seems like kind of a banal one. Whether or not we could celebrate it would probably depend on the details. It also doesn't seem terribly likely for a country to fall apart over...import taxes on widgets.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

Thought Experiment: What if the confederate states had not left the Union because of the slavery question, but instead left over something else not viewed so negatively today, such as import taxes on "widgets". Would it be then okay to celebrate the confederacy?

Are we assuming that they now have their own country? If so, I'm sure they'd celebrate it, and that would be fine, and I expect the US wouldn't, but would probably not care much anymore either. (Assuming that we had friendly relations now and all -- kind of like the US and UK, maybe.)

Or are we assuming that it was something that caused them to leave and that a bloody war was fought over and they subsequently became part of the US again? If so, I think the honor of the cause that led to the leaving depends on what it was about (as others have said) so we don't have enough information. But as for the celebration of fighting a war against the US, I have a problem with that, for people who claim to be patriotic US citizens, no matter what the cause.

My problem with the pro Confederacy stuff, then, is twofold. First, there's a racial element. And it's not just slavery -- the movement to bring back the Confederate battle flag was related to the Civil Rights Movement and anger at uppity blacks and meddling Yankees and the federal government then, it's impossible to say it's all about the right of secession or whether some Confederate general was a brave man or good tactician.

Second, as an American, I wouldn't join in a celebration of people who fought a war against my country, who injured or killed my ancestors who were fighting for the country that we supposedly all live in and love. I find it offensive for people to do that while claiming to be loyal Americans -- there's an inconsistency. It's especially distasteful when it's people who claim to be more patriotic than those of us Americans (the non real ones) who don't celebrate the Confederacy. Just weird.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Are we assuming that they now have their own country? If so, I'm sure they'd celebrate it, and that would be fine, and I expect the US wouldn't, but would probably not care much anymore either. (Assuming that we had friendly relations now and all -- kind of like the US and UK, maybe.)

Or are we assuming that it was something that caused them to leave and that a bloody war was fought over and they subsequently became part of the US again? If so, I think the honor of the cause that led to the leaving depends on what it was about (as others have said) so we don't have enough information. But as for the celebration of fighting a war against the US, I have a problem with that, for people who claim to be patriotic US citizens, no matter what the cause.

My problem with the pro Confederacy stuff, then, is twofold. First, there's a racial element. And it's not just slavery -- the movement to bring back the Confederate battle flag was related to the Civil Rights Movement and anger at uppity blacks and meddling Yankees and the federal government then, it's impossible to say it's all about the right of secession or whether some Confederate general was a brave man or good tactician.

Second, as an American, I wouldn't join in a celebration of people who fought a war against my country, who injured or killed my ancestors who were fighting for the country that we supposedly all live in and love. I find it offensive for people to do that while claiming to be loyal Americans -- there's an inconsistency. It's especially distasteful when it's people who claim to be more patriotic than those of us Americans (the non real ones) who don't celebrate the Confederacy. Just weird.

I'm laughing at myself.... I was agreeing with your points when I realized I had a third reason to object to confederate celebrations. I must really despise them!

Anyway, I guess my other bone to pick is the nationalist element - which I'll admit is a bugaboo of mine. (I'm not sure what you call it when referring to states. ) Maybe it's that is feels exclusionary. Although, I don't have a problem when ethnicities, or historically disenfranchised people do it. And you could make an argument that there's some old class stuff going on, in that the South is trying to hold on to something dignified.

Yet of course, in light of what the confederacy was literally standing for, there doesn't seem to be much dignity there. And maybe that's what really bothers me in the end - a sort of nostalgic embrace, or solidarity around something that is either pointless, or outright undignified. I'm reminded at how I bristle at the obnoxious way in which Texans fellate their own flag.

I know that was a harsh thing to say. And I probably shouldn't have. But it certainly illustrates my feelings on the subject. I suppose I'm a somewhat reserved person by nature, and that might account for my affinity for humility and meekness. I just feel that the world could always do with a bit less self-aggrandizement and macho displays of egotism.

Returning again to the national stage, all of this triumphalist, blathering nationalism seems to do nobody any good. I certainly approve of having values, and standing up for them. In many cases, the very act of proclaiming one's love for this or that flag actively prevents them from being conscious of just what it is they are defending.

I'm always amused when people have the nerve to assume that they are patriotic Americans, and others are not, because they happen to disagree with this or that policy. As if they have a mainline to the "truth" and they are able to judge who is and who is not American! Surely, there are some values that might clearly be considered American. But I'd wager the majority of what we consider uniquely "American Values" is at least debatable. There was enough controversy in the founding documents themselves.

Finally (for those of you still awake), I ask how much of what the confederacy stands for - or ever stood for - is alive in the consciousness of those who supposedly glory in it. Because, simple pageantry without meaning is pathetic enough. But simple pageantry with a meaning that represents such a tragic and horrid chapter in our nation's history seems downright ugly.

[operative]

I'm inclined to agree with John about Wattier, who outed himself as a bigoted goon and paid the justifiable consequences for doing so.

[MargaretH]

I'm a 63-year-old unemployed white lady originally from the Midwest and now of the Northeast. I grew up in an upper middle class liberal Republican home in a university town. I revered Martin Luther King and the people who marched with him. I was scared of Malcolm X and the African-American Moslims shown in Time and Life Magazine. And I didn't know what to make of Stokely Carmichael. I was stunned by and totally dumb to the riots in Watts and elsewhere. I never attended an event, march, or rally for equal rights for blacks.

If John and Glenn are ambivalent about Black History Month, I can understand. I suggest re-dedicating the month to the people who shake me out of complacency and through actions that are often theatrically and violently extreme, confront me with any truth that is self-evident. I don't know what to call that month, but it would be worth observing.

[ohreally]

A public apology is a funny thing. There are two completely distinct beasts hiding under the same name. If I insult you for no reason on bhtv -- something I'd never do, of course -- then, by offering to apologize, I offer to acknowledge the existence of something ugly in me that I can't always control. It's confessing my imperfections. It's acknowledging that my soul is not as pure as I wish it were and it's a renewed pledge to let my better angels do more of the driving. It's siding with you against the ugly in me.

A forced apology is an entirely different animal. It's an act of survival, not of contrition. Sincerity, being unverifiable, is irrelevant. Like when you pay a fine: no one asks you if your heart is in it. In a forced apology, the words are for the victims but their meaning is for the public. The objective is shaming. It's a power transaction really: I abused my power, so now you get to abuse yours, and we're even. Society's norms are upheld. We, westerners, don't do shaming very well (which, frankly, is just as well). So I understand McWhorter's concern. A forced apology is not about changing hearts but paying fines. The minute the student says "I accept your apology," she agrees that the offense was not worth more than the words of apology. But words are cheap. So how bad could the offense really be if a few insincere words are enough to undo it? Yet there is one reason she might want to do it even if contractually the deal isn't worth it. By accepting an apology she gets to display her ability to forgive, which is a noble trait.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by ohreally

A public apology is a funny thing. There are two completely distinct beasts hiding under the same name. If I insult you for no reason on bhtv -- something I'd never do, of course -- then, by offering to apologize, I offer to acknowledge the existence of something ugly in me that I can't always control. It's confessing my imperfections. It's acknowledging that my soul is not as pure as I wish it were and it's a renewed pledge to let my better angels do more of the driving. It's siding with you against the ugly in me.

A forced apology is an entirely different animal. It's an act of survival, not of contrition. Sincerity, being unverifiable, is irrelevant. Like when you pay a fine: no one asks you if your heart is in it. In a forced apology, the words are for the victims but their meaning is for the public. The objective is shaming. It's a power transaction really: I abused my power, so now you get to abuse yours, and we're even. Society's norms are upheld. We, westerners, don't do shaming very well (which, frankly, is just as well). So I understand McWhorter's concern. A forced apology is not about changing hearts but paying fines. The minute the student says "I accept your apology," she agrees that the offense was not worth more than the words of apology. But words are cheap. So how bad could the offense really be if a few insincere words are enough to undo it? Yet there is one reason she might want to do it even if contractually the deal isn't worth it. By accepting an apology she gets to display her ability to forgive, which is a noble trait.

Interesting post.

With a forced public apology, it seems to me it might be either/or. In the case of the prof (if I heard correctly) he was censured, put on unpaid leave, and finally resigned. That would seem to balance the books. Had he wished to keep his job, then certainly a public and private apology would have been required.

With private voluntary apologies there is also the aspect of healing the tension (anger/hurt/shame/etc) that the offense generated between the people. The offending person might not even have been aware that he or she had given offense. Requesting an apology can open a dialogue and increase awareness. It can also allow the offended person to question his or her own projections and to acknowledge that he/she also has an ugly side.

What's difficult is to let go of resentment when an apology is deserved but not forthcoming.

[jimM47]

Indeed. If this student had been in this professor's class long enough, they might have had a relationship. She might have respected him enough to expect an apology from him — she might think he could benefit from apologizing. And if she had the ability to make him learn something from his behavior, why should she be asked to forgo the emotional satisfaction of that? For the stories John tells, yeah, f@#$ that person, you're above that person. But you don't know who this professor is, or what his student thinks of him. Let her demand an apology if that's what she thinks is called for.

[operative]

Originally Posted by jimM47

Indeed. If this student had been in this professor's class long enough, they might have had a relationship. She might have respected him enough to expect an apology from him — she might think he could benefit from apologizing. And if she had the ability to make him learn something from his behavior, why should she be asked to forgo the emotional satisfaction of that? For the stories John tells, yeah, f@#$ that person, you're above that person. But you don't know who this professor is, or what his student thinks of him. Let her demand an apology if that's what she thinks is called for.

It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

[graz]

Originally Posted by operative

It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

Glad I'm not in your class perfesser. You're on winter-break right? Well we're gonna have to give you the dunce cap for assuming facts not in evidence -- well the evidence is available in the side bar link -- but then you wouldn't have been able to flex your authoritarian blame the victim routine: http://murrayledger.com/news/msu-pro...cc4c03286.html

Arlene Johnson, a freshman from Sikeston, Mo., told the Ledger & Times in a telephone interview that one day in August, she came to class early to find that a film was already in progress. She said that after class, she and another student asked professor Mark Wattier why the film had started before the official start time of the class, and she said he told them that when screening films, he typically started them 10-15 minutes before class.

She wasn't late thug!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by graz

Glad I'm not in your class perfesser. You're on winter-break right? Well we're gonna have to give you the dunce cap for assuming facts not in evidence -- well the evidence is available in the side bar link -- but then you wouldn't have been able to flex your authoritarian blame the victim routine: http://murrayledger.com/news/msu-pro...cc4c03286.html

[...]

She wasn't late thug!

It's not just that the operative assumed wrong. He also ignored what was said in the diavlog. John made this clear: that the movie started early, that the prof hadn't made any announcement beforehand, and when asked why he hadn't, responded with the slur.

[graz]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

It's not just that the operative assumed wrong. He also ignored what was said in the diavlog. John made this clear: that the movie started early, that the prof hadn't made any announcement beforehand, and when asked why he hadn't, responded with the slur.

Moreover, in his reply to Ocean he continues to excuse the Professor's behavior and further implicate and indict the victim ... without evidence.

My guess is Liberty University is his home?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by graz

Moreover, in his reply to Ocean he continues to excuse the Professor's behavior and further implicate and indict the victim ... without evidence.

My guess is Liberty University is his home?

That's unfair.

To Jerry Falwell.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by operative

It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

You didn't listen to the diavlog.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

You didn't listen to the diavlog.

And you're to kind to the thug.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Ocean

You didn't listen to the diavlog.

I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

[graz]

Originally Posted by operative

I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

Link?

[operative]

Originally Posted by graz

Link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021805858.html

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021805858.html

From your source:

In a lengthy e-mail sent to The Associated Press on Friday titled "My Side of the Story," Wattier acknowledged he made a mistake.

[...]

Wattier and Johnson gave different accounts of what happened, but both agreed that the professor made a reference to slavery while admonishing two students to be on time to class.

The rest sounds like Wattier lying to save a little face. That he's leaving tells you what the score was. Well, it tells anyone else besides you, I mean.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by operative

I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

Considering how contradictory it is to have made any of the two possible remarks and at the same time say that he respects African Americans, I don't give much credibility to his word, or his version of the story. I believe that he regrets what he said. I don't know whether his regret is about having said something so wrong, or his regret is about not having been able to refrain from saying what he thinks.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Considering how contradictory it is to have made any of the two possible remarks and at the same time say that he respects African Americans, I don't give much credibility to his word, or his version of the story.

Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard. I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.

I believe that he regrets what he said. I don't know whether his regret is about having said something so wrong, or his regret is about not having been able to refrain from saying what he thinks.

I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by operative

Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

I think you need to read my comment again. I said I didn't give much credibility to his version of the story. I didn't say that therefore everything the student said must be exactly accurate. You're creating a straw man.

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard.

In addition to my response above, I must say that the last part of your paragraph, about how much regard the student had for him and whether she was stellar or not has no ground on anything that was discussed in this diavlog or in the article that you linked to. It's your speculation only.

I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.

I've been a faculty member for the last 17 years.

I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.

I have no information that would lead me to believe he's a hardcore racist. He said something inappropriate and racist. If he's been a professor for a long time. I doubt he's been around making these kind of remarks publicly for years, although we don't know one way or the other. But if he had such a poor judgment to say what he said, perhaps it was time for him to retire.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think you need to read my comment again. I said I didn't give much credibility to his version of the story. I didn't say that therefore everything the student said must be exactly accurate. You're creating a straw man.

The inference that I drew from your response was that you were essentially choosing to believe her story in its entirety. I don't.

It's your speculation only.

You're right, but I know undergrads and particularly undergrads who don't pay close enough attention to come to class at the proper time.

I've been a faculty member for the last 17 years.

And your students are all eager little learners who are looking to their professors as role models? Wow, remind me to look for an opening at your university!

I have no information that would lead me to believe he's a hardcore racist. He said something inappropriate and racist. If he's been a professor for a long time. I doubt he's been around making these kind of remarks publicly for years, although we don't know one way or the other. But if he had such a poor judgment to say what he said, perhaps it was time for him to retire.

Well, here's his faculty page:
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academ.../mark.wattier/

and here is his rmp reviews:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Show...jsp?tid=341538

And I certainly don't disagree that it was time for him to retire.

[Ocean]

I'll cut it short this time.

I think we both know what the other is saying. You're simply more sympathetic to the Professor, for reasons that I will leave to you to disclose if you so choose.

The professor retired. He'll get his pension and hopefully will go on to enjoy life without subjecting students to his nasty remarks. The student will have learned, if she didn't know it already, that still there are racists in this country, that some of them are professors, and that some of them say inappropriate things.

The student's standing is completely irrelevant. Even if she was the worst student in the University, the professor's comment would have been inappropriate. Don't deflect attention to an unrelated issue.

And this professor has to go to sleep now.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think we both know what the other is saying. You're simply more sympathetic to the Professor, for reasons that I will leave to you to disclose if you so choose.

I wouldn't say that I'm more sympathetic to the Professor at all. He was certainly wrong and his remark was certainly suggestive of racial bigotry. I just wish that we wouldn't treat the student's recollection of the event as the definitive account of what occurred. Even in a case where no matter what, we recognize that he was very much in the wrong, we can still be a bit more analytical in how we view what happened.

The student's standing is completely irrelevant. Even if she was the worst student in the University, the professor's comment would have been inappropriate.

I don't disagree.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by operative

... this student ... was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)...

What's your source for this claim?

[operative]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

What's your source for this claim?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblo...slave-comment/

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by operative

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblo...slave-comment/

Sorry, that story doesn't support the claim that the student in question "was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)..."

[operative]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Sorry, that story doesn't support the claim that the student in question "was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)..."

So far as I can gather, two students were late to class. Nothing has said anything about any more than two students being late.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by operative

Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard. I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.



I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.

why are you making excuses for him? none of us have intimate knowledge of the situation, but I think in general it's a good idea to not give people who say outrageously offensive and racist things the benefit of the doubt.

[operative]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

why are you making excuses for him? none of us have intimate knowledge of the situation, but I think in general it's a good idea to not give people who say outrageously offensive and racist things the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not excusing what he said. I'm saying that I do not 100% believe her account of the story.