What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should someone be held accountable for racist remarks made 40 years ago? (1 Viewer)

All I can tell you is I was in college in Texas in the mid 80's and we knew without question, black face and KKK "costumes" were WAY over the line. 
Not doubting you but I presume (maybe wrongly) that some adult in that school reviewed the yearbook before it was printed, right?  Seems like it would have been a whoa what are you doing here dummy get a different picture

 
In my opinion, it's not "blackface" if the intent is to authentically portray a specific person (without resorting to racial stereotypes).

Hardly anyone complained when Kimmel portrayed Karl Malone in 1999. Most of the "complaints" have been in the form of faux outrage 15 years after the fact.
All outrage is basically faux...the reality is people are going back 30-40 years now. If there was social media in 99 Kimmel would have been roasted.

 
We'll just have to disagree there. I think Megan Kelly clarified the intent doesn't matter. And not sure how you decide what is real and what is "faux" outrage, but lots of people strongly dislike the Karl Marlone "skits". 
IMO

Faux outrage in this case is people who have never heard of this guy before, read 3 tweets and begin spouting for drastic action. 

Typically people that speak the loudest on these matters are people a)pushing their agenda or b) formed their immediate opinion with very little knowledge or information verification of said story.

For me, context, intention and personal history matter into determining an informed opinion. 

 
Bass, mad respect for you through the years, but you're WAY off base here. 

Every elected Democrat is calling for this guy's head. All of them. 
Yeah I don’t get how people are trying to make this a political issue. It’s not. 

 
Not at all.

People were muddying the issue and deflecting talking desegregation in the 80s or how it was so different.

I'm saying for the actual issue of "costumes" with black face and KKK, people knew that was way over the line. 
No.  You said it wasn't different by saying it wasn't the 50's.  While on the spectrum of racial awareness the 80's weren't the 50's, it was still a time where people around the country were figuring stuff out.  

 
In my opinion, it's not "blackface" if the intent is to authentically portray a specific person (without resorting to racial stereotypes).

Hardly anyone complained when Kimmel portrayed Karl Malone in 1999. Most of the "complaints" have been in the form of faux outrage 15 years after the fact.
We'll just have to disagree there. I think Megan Kelly clarified the intent doesn't matter. And not sure how you decide what is real and what is "faux" outrage, but lots of people strongly dislike the Karl Marlone "skits". 
The Karl Malone skits started in 1999. The internet existed then. No one seriously proclaimed outrage until 2016, which is coincidentally the same time that Kimmel started to get more political on his show.

Intent and context absolutely matter. Forms of blackface still get aired on television hundreds of times every year, with nary a peep of complaint.

Jimmy Kimmel actually revisited his Karl Malone impression in 2016 (and threw in a Mike Tyson impression while he was at it), and there was no outrage.

You might be offended, but the vast majority of the public recognizes when impersonating people of a different race is not meant to hurt, offend, or stereotype. And they adjust their outrage meters accordingly.

Ralph Northam is in trouble because there was an obvious attempt to stereotype. If his yearbook picture featured an authentic impersonation of Michael Jackson, we wouldn't even be talking about him right now.

 
i don’t want to read all posts and get into a long conversation, cause this can go on forever.  This is a country that had Strom Thurmond as a senator for a bazillion years, which is my only point.  Can’t be anymore racist than his record i would think.  
Robert Byrd says "Hold my beer"

 
i don’t want to read all posts and get into a long conversation, cause this can go on forever.  This is a country that had Strom Thurmond as a senator for a bazillion years, which is my only point.  Can’t be anymore racist than his record i would think.  
Robert Byrd says "Hold my beer"
Two pages ago says "Hold my beer".

Also, ChemX was specifically referring to Thurmond's political record, which was racisty from start to finish. On the other hand, Byrd was arguably racist for the first half of his political career and arguably non-racist for the 2nd half of his career.

 
Two pages ago says "Hold my beer".

Also, ChemX was specifically referring to Thurmond's political record, which was racisty from start to finish. On the other hand, Byrd was arguably racist for the first half of his political career and arguably non-racist for the 2nd half of his career.
I tend to Hipple, my bad.........

And once a KKK member always a KKK member, at least in my mind.

 
Two pages ago says "Hold my beer".

Also, ChemX was specifically referring to Thurmond's political record, which was racisty from start to finish. On the other hand, Byrd was arguably racist for the first half of his political career and arguably non-racist for the 2nd half of his career.
I tend to Hipple, my bad.........

And once a KKK member always a KKK member, at least in my mind.
Sure. And Ronald Reagan was always a liberal Democrat, even after he opposed its tenets. And Lincoln always tolerated slavery, even as he attempted to end it. Makes total sense.

 
Not doubting you but I presume (maybe wrongly) that some adult in that school reviewed the yearbook before it was printed, right?  Seems like it would have been a whoa what are you doing here dummy get a different picture
He was 24 or 25 in Med School. They WERE the adults.

 
there should be when you support Nazis or the KKK. Two groups known for violence. 
If the support is criminal and shown to be so, absolutely.  If not - i.e. "I like Nazis", then no way.  I realize there is a push among many these days to quash the 1st amendment, but it's a horrible thing to contemplate if you head down that rat hole.

 
Standing Hampton said:
There is an informal one, the court of public opinion.
Sure, and I'll bet the constituents in VA may want to think about a recall.  That's fine and appropriate here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, and I'll bet the constituents in VA may want to think about a recall.  That's fine and appropriate here.
So now word is that the next two in line have baggage too, maybe even the same baggage? Do they just bring in someone off the street to run the state?

 
So now word is that the next two in line have baggage too, maybe even the same baggage? Do they just bring in someone off the street to run the state?
It would fall to the leader of the house.  And it absolutely should.  We have two with blackface issues - out.  We have one with a credible sexual assault allegation, that by the blue team's own standards, "deserves to be believed".  He should be instantly out, as well.

Staggering the collection of politicians they have ended up with here to run that state.

 
So now word is that the next two in line have baggage too, maybe even the same baggage? Do they just bring in someone off the street to run the state?
Sexual assualt for one, victim statement out today. Someone off the street would be a significant upgrade to these 3 clowns. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top