Mock

I understand your point, cannongal.

But, Dolezal is a grown woman. It's my understanding that she estranged herself from her parents and I don't know if they knew certainly that she was lying about her history (as opposed to immersing and acclimating within the black community).

If she were my adult daughter, I wouldn't try to interfere with her life unless I thought she was committing crimes or putting her life or the lives at others in danger. And, I wouldn't make public statements about her unless I was directly confronted and asked about claims she'd made publicly. At that point, I think I'd just be honest rather than get dragged into a web a lies or undermine my own credibility.

To me, all of the adults in the family seem strange.

I know what Reverse Discrimination means, aussie.

But, I'm not clear on how you see it applying to the Dolezal situation?

My guess is the parents were getting compensated somehow. I don't doubt her financial records are getting analized *



* anal

(06-18-2015, 09:24 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I know what Reverse Discrimination means, aussie.

But, I'm not clear on how you see it applying to the Dolezal situation?

I remain steadfast to the opinion that Dolezal's character and not her alleged racial identity argument, was the basis for her con.

If she truly believed she was black, then she disrespected MLK's content of character versus color of skin dream.

If Aussie truly understood the concept of reverse racism or discrimination, she would have offered a scenario using Dolezal's Howard University lawsuit and the belief that she was a victim of reverse racism . . . prompting her to "beat the system at their own game" and change her race for personal gain.

Dolezal is just another pissed off white woman shunned by the darker skinned community.

Kinda like Aussie.

I still don't get why aussie thinks that Dolezal's racial identity fraud will undoubtedly result in her experiencing reverse discrimination.

In my opinion, anyone of any color who chooses to regard Dolezal as an undesirable after what she pulled is more likely to be a person of sound and discriminating judgment than a racial discriminator. She's just a con artist and a consummate self-proclaimed victim in my eyes.

I doubt Dolezal's lawsuit against Howard was valid. But, if it was, she might have experienced reverse racism way back then. That's true.

I'm not suggesting that Dolezal was a victim of Howard University's hiring practices.

I was just offering a way out for aussie to back peddle her way out of her ignorance and pabulum posts.

But you knew that, already!

Yeah, I knew. I'm just conversating with you.

I think sometimes whites are discriminated against and I could see it happening at a predominately black university, but I agree that Dolezal wasn't likely a victim of it.

What's pitiful to me is that she had so much support in the activism community, even though she verbalized and posted statements that clearly discriminated against whites. That should have rubbed members of the NAACP and others who claim to fight for "equality for all" the wrong way. The activists who are still standing by her and rationalizing her bullshit look like hypocritical fools to me.

Stop reading my mind, HotD!

New woman named for $10 bill!!!

Did Zero send that to you?

(06-17-2015, 01:47 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]wait, she can't be racist against white people if she's actually white.

And she can't be racist against black people if she's choosing to live black...

It's the perfect con!

Your post reminded me of a true story I read yesterday Cutz.


^ A homosexual couple claims they were assaulted at a Cinco de Mayo BBQ party because they're gay. It was caught on tape.


When the tape went viral, ^ the accused assailant turned himself in to NYPD Hate Crime detectives. His lawyer says that he can't be charged with a hate crime because he too is gay.

The man who taped the incident said that it was the alleged victims who started the brawl after one of them accidentally knocked over a drink and yet another (unidentified) customer said, "white faggots, spilling drinks". At that point, the alleged victims started talking shit to the alleged assailant. That's when the sharp-dressed 6'6"' alleged assailant cracked a chair over one of their heads.

So, if the unidentified customer turns out to be white and gay himself, I guess there was no "hate crime" and this can instead be considered a case of dudes drinking, talking shit, and brawling?

That would have been my vote in the first place.

Ass the world turns................

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...exual.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-...-1.2259759

I hate it when fags aren't color blind.

Kind of shows the lunacy of calling something a hate crime.

'It's a hate crime, erhmagod!!! Gays got attacked!!!'

"Oh wait, the perp is gay? Bummer, it's just a regular crime now.'

****

And no sally, pinched that picture from the interwebs. I think in zeros current mindset she would have not chopped that.

This women is full of and is a pathological liar, and thus, is unfit for a leadership role in any organization. I thought maybe one reason the parents finally "outed" her is that they recognize she need some therapy and maybe this was a desperate attempt to call attention to it and just maybe, some help for their daughter. She clearly has issues beyond her ethics. (or lack of)

Sorry, this is re Rachel and I meant to quote someone else.....

(06-18-2015, 08:59 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of shows the lunacy of calling something a hate crime.

'It's a hate crime, erhmagod!!! Gays got attacked!!!'

"Oh wait, the perp is gay? Bummer, it's just a regular crime now.'

I have mixed feelings about the "hate crimes" and "domestic terrorism" designations. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Both are committed daily for a variety of motives. So, are those subjective designations really necessary or even appropriate in specific cases?

In any case, I think the designations lose validity and impact when they're overused and inappropriately applied, as with the assault case brought by the gay couple upthread. That doesn't appear to have been motivated by the fact that the couple was gay, but instead by a dispute between people who happen to be gay.

On the other hand, when assholes like the Tsarnaevs, the animals who beat Stephen Utash, Nidal Hasan, Dylann Roof...kill or assault strangers for hate motives, I do like that the Federal government has authority to push for the death penalty where some states don't, and that prosecutors can use that and harsher penalties as leverage against the perpetrators (especially when mass murder/assault is involved).

I like your point about the Fed's being able to utilize the piggy back charge in a death penalty scenario where a state may not have it... hadn't really thought about that angle.

But for the most part adding hate crime on top of the original crime seems ridiculous to me. What we need is some polite crime balance!

"Sorry old chap, but I need to shoot you now. Fare thee well!". BANG.

Look, I really like you, but it's not you, it's me... *bang*

I just rode the elevator with a girl that was easily 6'5, 300lbs. She was about 3 times my size. I'm thinking transgender? Cross dresser? I've never seen a female that big.