The horror.... the horror ....

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/director-hits-back-critics-taylor-swifts-african-video-181556500.html

Director hits back at critics of Taylor Swift's African video


NEW YORK (Reuters) - The director of Taylor Swift's new music video set in Africa struck back on Wednesday at mounting criticism of the scarcity of black people in the mini-film and its romanticized portrayal of the continent.
"Wildest Dreams," a love story filmed against a backdrop of giraffes, lions, waterfalls and stunning sunsets, has been viewed more than 15 million times since it was released on Monday to accompany the American pop superstar's latest single.
Although Swift is donating all proceeds to the African Parks Foundation of America, critics have seized on the video as portraying a stereotyped colonial-era view of Africa.
"So thank you, Taylor Swift, for proving once again that African stereotypes are safe atop the pinnacle of American pop culture," wrote Matt Carotenuto, who teaches African studies at New York state's St. Lawrence University, in an article on Wednesday on Salon.com.
Director Joseph Kahn said the "Wildest Dreams" video depicted a love story on the set of a period film in Africa in 1950.

………

In an article for National Public Radio's website, James Kaaga Arinaitwe and Viviane Rutabingwa, who have both lived and worked in several African countries, said Swift was not the first person to use the continent as a backdrop for romantic tales.
"We are shocked to think that in 2015, Taylor Swift, her record label and her video production group would think it was OK to film a video that presents a glamorous version of the white colonial fantasy of Africa," they added.





Please shut the fuck up.

I think that this is the perfect place for this video...

In an excerpt from his recent Netflix special "Unconstitutional," comedian Colin Quinn skewers how the newspeak of political correctness makes it impossible to communicate.

Thanks Scorpion. I'm gonna add that to my list.

happy jack wrote:

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the ridiculous causes of some liberals would be better served if they would occasionally shut the fuck up?



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419347/liberals-now-find-gender-identity-itself-oppressive-jonah-goldberg

Liberals Now Find Gender Identity Itself Oppressive

by JONAH GOLDBERG June 5, 2015 12:00 AM @JONAHNRO

At a moment when many on the left are desperately trying to conjure up enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton’s bid to become the first woman president, others on the left want to turn the word “woman” into a term of exclusion and oppression. This is just one of the more amusing ironies on display as what passes for liberalism today eats itself. No doubt you’ve heard: Bruce Jenner has become Caitlyn Jenner. I can’t muster much outrage about this. If someone born a man wants to live as a woman, or vice versa, they are free to do so as far as I’m concerned. What does bother me is the way everyone is expected to celebrate Jenner’s decision and courage. Why can’t I just not care? Or, maybe I just don’t want to be part of a massive public-relations effort tied to the rollout of yet another reality show? While conservatives had their own list of complaints about this national celebration, the more intriguing ones came from the left. For instance, many people criticized the Vanity Fair cover of Jenner as a pinup. “One step forward for Caitlyn Jenner, one step back for womankind,” Eric Sasson complained in The New Republic. “As a media sensation, Jenner had many choices for how to reveal herself to us, so the fact that she chose a way that only reinforces how much our society objectifies women is a bit distressing,” he explained. Dana Beyer of Gender Rights Maryland argued fairly persuasively that it would have been better for her cause if Jenner had dressed as a businesswoman instead of as a sex symbol. One problem with this argument, as many of the people making it recognize, is that Jenner’s business is the reality show celebrity-buzz racket. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue surely objectifies women, but it wouldn’t sell nearly as many copies if it was the Sports Illustrated Sensible Pantsuit Issue. Moreover, there’s something gloriously perverse in celebrating someone’s courage to boldly smash sexual categories and then, in the same breath, castigating them for reinforcing gender stereotypes. If men are to be free to become women, surely they get to decide what kind of women they want to be. The first word in Vanity Fair is, after all, “vanity.” The Sports Illustrated swimsuit models seem very happy to be paid lots of money to be objectified by the male gaze. Who am I to judge? But the most fascinating argument comes from those who have no problem with Jenner changing genders, but have serious misgivings about the word “woman.” On a recent MSNBC panel celebrating the “Jenner Effect,” The Nation’s Michelle Goldberg (no relation), noted that many young feminists “no longer want to use the word ‘woman’ in relation to abortion because it excludes trans men.” There’s a lot of “conceptual murk to clear away,” she added with admirable understatement, “but among younger people that I’ve talked to, it almost seems amazing to them that anybody would question the need to have gender-neutral language.” In a fascinating piece for The New Yorker, Goldberg wrote about this growing schism. Rachel Ivey, a young feminist told Goldberg, “If I were to say in a typical women’s-studies class today, ‘Female people are oppressed on the basis of reproduction,’ I would get called out.” Some students, she explained, would ask, “What about women who are male?” No matter how fluid gender may or may not be, the biological category of ‘female’ isn’t going away anytime soon. Next stop: the other side of the looking glass. On most days of the week, liberals are fond of claiming that Republicans are “anti-science” on everything from global warming to evolution. Well, last I checked, biology hadn’t been declared a branch of the humanities. Bruce Jenner was 65 years old when he decided to be a she, but that’s not why Caitlyn can’t have a baby. Figuratively speaking, removing the spigot won’t change the rest of the plumbing. That’s not patriarchal oppression talking. That’s science. And no matter how fluid gender may or may not be, the biological category of “female” isn’t going away anytime soon. I have sympathy for people who are convinced they were born the wrong sex. But feeling oppressed by a category doesn’t render that category illegitimate or unreal. (Short people may resent being short, but that doesn’t nullify the concept of height.) Nevertheless, I will certainly enjoy watching this argument unfold as Hillary Clinton wraps herself in the new mantle of oppression called “womanhood.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425706/skoliosexual-sexual-orientation

Apparently, ‘Skoliosexual’ Is an Orientation Now

by KATHERINE TIMPF October 16, 2015 3:24 PM @KATTIMPF

And “zucchini” isn’t just a type of vegetable anymore.

According to an article in the Huffington Post, there are a whole host of sexual orientations that socially uneducated people like you probably don’t know about — including “skoliosexual,” “demisexual,” “demiromantic” and “graysexual.” Now — not to cis-plain or anything! — but when I read the definitions for some of these words, I couldn’t help but think that they sounded more like common personality traits than entire separate orientations. For example: “Graysexual,” according to a man named Jared who identifies this way, is a “magical place between asexual and someone who is sexual.” So, basically, someone who likes sex but not that much. In fact, I would think that “someone who likes sex but not that much” would be an okay way to describe it without needing a separate word, but what do I know? (I’m just straight and white; I don’t know anything!) Now – perhaps because I am such an insensitive bigot – I really did feel the same way about a lot of the other words on the list. Take “demisexual,” which refers to a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they “have already formed a strong emotional bond.” See, I might call that “a person who does not have sex with strangers he or she meets at bars.” “Demiromantic” refers to a person who does not feel sexual attraction “unless they have already formed a strong emotional bond with that person.” I might call that “a person who approaches relationships in a normal, healthy, non-codependent way.” Some of the terms are not quite as specific. “Skoliosexual” refers to “sexual attraction to non-binary identified individuals,” according to a definition cited from Genderqueerid.com. Unlike other very oppressive words, this orientation “does not generally describe an attraction to specific genitalia or birth assignments but rather is an inclusive term.” Um. Okay? Got it? Of all of the terms, the one that surprised me the most was “zucchini.” Yep — that’s right, kids! “Zucchini” isn’t just a vegetable anymore. It’’s also “the name for a partner who is involved in a queerplatonic relationship, as in ‘he’s my zucchini.’” What’s a queerplatonic relationship, you ask? Don’t fret, the Huffington Post has your back here: “Relationships that ‘are not romantic in nature but they involve very close emotional connections that are often deeper or more intense than what is traditionally considered a friendship.’” Yikes. And here I thought you could just call your close friends “close friends.” I had no idea we needed separate, complicated words for every single possible way we might interact with other human beings! Wow . . . I guess I must just be really close-minded.




Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's really hard to keep up with these fucking idiots?

http://www.thewrap.com/michael-moore-happy-to-join-oscars-boycott-exclusive/

Michael Moore ‘Happy to Join’ Oscars Boycott (Exclusive)

| By Steve Pond on January 19, 2016 @ 6:29 am

“The idea that we could go two years in a row, where 40 actors could be nominated and none of them were loud-mouthed fatasses, is just crazy,” says Oscar-winning director.
Michael Moore plans to join the boycott of this year’s Academy Awards organized by Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith, the Oscar-winning filmmaker told TheWrap on Monday night.
“I absolutely support what they are doing, and I will be happy to join them,” the “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” director said in a passionate late-night phone call. “I thought about this all day, and I don’t plan to go to the show, I don’t plan to watch it and I don’t plan to go to an Oscar party. In fact, I may not even get out of my recliner. In fact, I may not even be able to get out of my recliner."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/sports/sacramento-kings-pull-year-of-the-monkey-fan-shirts-from-seats.html

Sacramento Kings Pull ‘Year of the Monkey’ Shirts From Seats

By CHRISTINE HAUSER  
FEB. 2, 2016

Observing two cultural celebrations at the same time can lead to controversy, the Sacramento Kings learned this week.
On Monday night, the team hastily removed free “Year of the Monkey” T-shirts for fans from arena seats after complaints that the giveaway was racially insensitive on the first night of Black History Month.
The Lunar New Year, an Asian festival that will start on Monday in the United States, is the highlight of the Chinese calendar. Each year is based on a symbol of the Chinese horoscope, and this is the Year of the Monkey, the ninth of 12 animals in the cycle. But the team’s effort to celebrate seemed misplaced to some at the start of the annual celebration of African-American heritage.
Images of workers removing the shirts from seats at the Sleep Train arena, where the Kings were playing the Milwaukee Bucks, were published on social media.
On Facebook, the former N.B.A. All-Star Marques Johnson, a television analyst for the Bucks, described an encounter he had on Monday night with DeMarcus Cousins, the Kings’ All-Star center, who objected to the shirts: “I walk into the building, and DeMarcus Cousins calls me over to an animated discussion he’s having with Kings operations people. He ask me, ‘Olskool, what you think about this T-shirt?’ Told him a little insensitive on 1st day of Black History Month. They pulled the shirts. ...”
On Monday night, players and coaches were wearing Black History Month shirts during warm-up. Cousins did not play on Monday night because of a sprained ankle.
The Kings went on to defeat the Bucks, 111-104.
The N.B.A. has celebrated the Lunar New Year before as part of its community engagement programs. In 2015, it ushered in the Year of the Goat with activities including prizes, performances and special foods to celebrate the diversity of the league’s fan base.
This year, other teams in the league have participated in New Year events. The Charlotte Hornets guard Jeremy Lin and players from other teams were featured in a television “Dining Table” spot as part of celebrations from Feb. 3 to 21.
The Sacramento Bee reported that the “Year of the Monkey” shirts were removed from the seats about 90 minutes before the game started. Other celebrations of the Lunar Year went ahead as planned, including a ribbon dance by the Kings’ dancers.
“We all need a lesson in sensitivity,” the Kings’ president, Chris Granger, told The Sacramento Bee. “In an effort to celebrate Chinese New Year, we had some concerns about the T-shirt giveaway, so we pulled them all before the doors opened. Certainly we don’t want to offend anybody, and we acted as soon as we heard the concern.”






So, where do I begin?
The Chinese New Year, the Year of the Monkey, is being celebrated by the NBA, with T-shirts portraying a monkey being handed out to Sacramento Kings fans.
The Chinese New Year happens to coincide with Black History Month.
Right on cue, liberals allow their true colors to show by publicly exposing their own apparent belief that blacks look like monkeys, and they decide to ban the shirts in an effort to demonstrate their ’sensitivity’, thereby insulting blacks and, to a lesser degree, the Chinese, all the while patting themselves on the back.
Funny how that works.

It's times like this that the stupid hurts like a migraine.



http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/gender-reveal-parties-harmful/

3 Ways That Gender Reveal Parties Can Be Harmful — Plus 3 Awesome Alternatives

February 7, 2016 by Pidgeon Pagonis

The day has come. The mini chalkboards urging guests to vote whether you’re having a boy or girl is up. The display listing old wives’ tales is prepared. And the pink and blue cookies, balloons, and candy all marked with white question marks are in their rightful places.
Guests begin to arrive and butterflies flutter. Or—wait—was that a kick from the little one baking in your oven? Ow! Definitely a kick.
A friend you’ve known since high school takes one look at you, now seven-and-a-half-months pregnant, clicks her teeth, and says definitively, “It’s a girl.” She walks over to the chalkboard to vote while you let out a sigh. You’ve been told it’s better to have a boy, because they’re just easier.
You begin to feel everyone’s curious minds and hungry eyes on you, and you realize it’s time. Everyone waits for you to bite into your cupcake. This time, the butterflies are real. Please let it be blue.
The frosting oozes out and your sister-in-law is the first to see its color. Giddy with excitement, she trips over her tongue and announces, “It’s a… purple?” You almost don’t hear the collective befuddled gasp made by everyone in the room.
Purple?
***
Dang! It’s hard to imagine how confused an expectant parent in that situation might feel.
Since gender reveal parties only take into consideration the possibilities that a baby will be born either male or female, they completely leave people like myself – who were born intersex – and others out, all while reinforcing the binary gender roles that feminists love to hate.
I first heard about these parties from Hann Lindahl, an intersex youth activist, who recently included an anecdote about them in her PechaKucha presentation (which is totally worth watching, by the way).
These parties usually consist of inviting friends and relatives over to simultaneously bite into cupcakes revealing blue or pink frosting, which informs everyone – including the parent(s)-to-be – of the baby’s sex.
To accomplish this, the ultrasound results are covertly transferred from the sonographer to the baker. Other parent(s) may opt for a different method of revelation, such as opening a sealed box that releases pink or blue helium balloons.
The story in the introduction was based off of what could have been my mother’s experience, had she underwent prenatal genetic testing before I was born.
The frosting was purple to signify that I, like 1 in 2,000 babies born each and every day, was born with one of two dozen intersex variations. That is, my body’s biological sex traits – usually determined by markers such as genitals, internal reproductive organs, and chromosomes – do not completely fall within the “male” or “female” categories.
Gender reveal parties don’t have negative intentions. In fact, if you’re reading this feeling badly about the gender reveal party you just had this weekend, don’t! Shoot, if I was invited to one of these parties tomorrow, I would most likely RSVP yes because I love cupcakes. Gender is like an ocean we all swim in and it can’t be ignored away.
1. They Reinforce the Incorrect Idea That Gender Is Determined by Genitalia
For starters, these parties wrongly support the notion that gender is intrinsically synonymous with genitalia.
We’re told that people born with penises are boys and expected to grow into men who present masculine, and those with vaginas are girls who are expected to grow into women and present feminine.
In this binary way of thinking, genitals are allowed to trump our internal sense of self – also known as our gender identity.
Even though science has no conclusive answers, most folks will tell you that gender originates during exposure to hormones in the womb and is further influenced by messages received from families, communities, and media.
Gender roles, on the other hand, are a different story.
First termed by John Money in 1955 to draw a distinction between sex and gender, the gender role concept wasn’t popularized until the 1970s. Fed up with the unfair expectations and limitations, feminists set out to deconstruct these oppressive gender roles and highlight their arbitrariness.
Masculinity and femininity were, they argued, but two stars amid a milky way of gender identity and expression – and like stars, gender could fade and re-illuminate many times.
John Money unintentionally opened a Pandora’s box that helped begin the work of unshackling gender roles, identity, and expression from its former entrenchment to biological sex.
The myth that gender and biological sex are mutually exclusive is harmful because it punishes those of us who do not fit this definition – that is, all of us intersex, trans, and gender non-conforming folks.
While this notion is being challenged more and more every day, we still have lots of work to do before we transform how the masses perceive sex and gender.
2. They Reinforce the Gender Binary
Some gender reveal parties feature welcome signs that say, “He or She? Come in and see!”
The gender binary is an artificial scale that places men at one end and women at the other. People at these ends are believed to contain “opposite” sets of biological sex, gender identity, expression, roles, and subsequent privileges and disadvantages.
Considered by most as “just the way things are,” it’s important to resist this mantra and remind ourselves that everything we take for granted that sustains the gender binary is actually subjective.
To illustrate this point, think of how we’ve been taught about the moment fertilization occurs in humans: The mighty sperm competitively races upstream – like a salmon in a rushing river – until the victor finds and penetrates the passive, unaware egg, who prior was probably just sitting there doing her nails or something.
Most are familiar with this idea of the one, strong, fast-swimming sperm who makes it to the egg first – when in reality, the egg yanks and clutches its chosen sperm. Which means that it isn’t the sperm, but the egg that exhibits the “strength” and “makes us who we are.”
Myths like these often lead to treacherous outcomes. For example, proponents of “traditional” gender roles often cite them to argue why “a woman’s place is x.” When challenged, they often state that they didn’t make up these roles – that instead, they’re embedded in the building blocks of life.
This past Christmas, I witnessed the manifestation of this harmful effect firsthand.
My two-year-old cousin, assigned male at birth, was reprimanded by my cousin, his aunt, for pushing a new baby stroller. She said it was one of “the girls’ toys.” Sensing his aunt’s discomfort, I stood up for him.
My little cousin, who still had his hands attached to the baby stroller, was looking up at me. I told his aunt, “If we don’t let our boys play with dolls, then we can’t act surprised when the men in our family don’t know how to express emotions in healthy ways or take care of their kids.”
My protest was quickly shut down – not by his aunt, like I had expected, but by another cousin, a six-year-old, who point blank told me, “Boys can’t play with girls’ toys!” As illuminated by this example, our kids’ desires and expressions are often molded by the fears of adults.
Gender reveal parties promote a socially constructed gender binary that eclipses the full range of sex and gender possibilities. They also set expectations that can lead to parents questioning what they did wrong to raise a child that didn’t grow up to be what they, and everyone else at the party, expected of them.
One way we can begin working to avoid situations like these is by figuring out ways of transforming the unfamiliar into the familiar, the untruths into truths, and by letting our kids play with whatever toys they desire. Gender reveal parties, as you’ll later read about, could be a perfect place to start this process.
3. They Throw Gender Roles Onto Kids Before They’re Even Born
Lastly, these parties make the mistake of placing gendered expectations on children before they even enter our world.
The colors and symbols used to reveal a child’s gender at one of these parties may inadvertently manipulate expectations we have for the child. This unnecessary pressure also affects how others view the child’s capabilities, which simultaneously can shape how your child will gauge themselves as well.
For instance, even though I was born intersex with XY chromosomes and underwent a surgery to remove my internal testes, I was assigned female at birth and raised as such. I have a stark memory of climbing a fence and being hollered at by mom to stop playing and come in to take a shower.
When I protested and begged for more playing time, she responded by saying, “You’re worse than your boy cousins!” Her words made me feel ashamed and today, I think of them almost every day while taking a shower. If she didn’t have gendered expectations for me, I wonder if her response to my plea would have been different.
Gender reveal parties on Pinterest demonstrate some of these harmful gendered expectations. Search results pulled up an idea for an entrance sign that read, “Almost time to see, which it will be? A bouncing little he, or a pretty little she?”
Stereotypes like these can affect how we interpret our children’s behavior posing serious implications down the line.
For example, it used to be assumed that girls were extremely less likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). But in an article published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2003, a researcher found that while ADHD doesn’t discriminate based on gender, doctors indeed did.
Since pretty girls are “socialized differently,” they “tend to express themselves in a different manner” than bouncy boys.
This meant that girls, expected to be calmer and quieter, often experienced the lesser-known depression and anxiety aspects of ADHD, rather than the hyperactivity aspects, and were being overlooked. Untreated ADHD in young girls, many contend, leads to a long list of negative – yet avoidable – issues later in life.
Other Pinterest results pulled up chalk board ideas – meant to give invitees a fun way to guess the baby’s gender – that substituted the words boy or girl in the boards question with alternative gendered descriptors such as “ties or tutus,” “guns or glitter,” and “rifles or ruffles.”
Heavily gendered expectations like these are harmful because they create ample room for “failures” – failure for your kid to fit the expectation, adhere to the plan, and make you feel like you were a good enough parent.
Gendering everything in absolute and binary ways can unknowingly gender the expectations we have for our children.
Instead of placing these expectations on the little people we love most, let’s take Dr. Elaine Heffner’s advice and “enjoy your child for who [they are], not for who you imagined [they] would be!”
Alternatives to Gender Reveal Parties
1. Prepare For All Possibilities
Instead of a gender reveal party, use the time to start envisioning and preparing for all possibilities – including intersex, trans, or non-binary kids.
One route towards accomplishing this goal was taken by smart friends of mine who created legal documents to protect their child in case they were born intersex. They stated, “The Parties agree that if the child(ren) is are born with an intersex condition, no surgical procedures will be done with the exception of those that are deemed a medical necessity.”
This not only mentally prepares a family, but also grants children bodily autonomy – something many intersex, trans, and non-binary children are usually robbed of.
2. Have a ‘Surprise, My Baby Doesn’t Have a Gender Yet’ Party
Go ahead and have that gender reveal party, but do it with a twist.
Instead of biting into a cupcake and finding pink or blue frosting, have guests bite into rainbow cake! Or, instead of opening a box to reveal pink or blue balloons, open one with balloons of every color under the rainbow.
Then, use that rare time with your friends and family to discuss what it was like growing up in a culture that unevenly attributes gender expectations with sex anatomy.
This may seem awkward at first, but it’s not impossible. One way to get the conversation started is by asking everyone, “How many people didn’t get to play with certain toys because they were for boys or vice versa?”
Ask guests to bring gender-neutral gifts that display a wide range of ways to be in the world and honor your child’s gender autonomy. The goal, being to “expose kids to a wide range of gender-types and give them the freedom to explore without judgment.”
This a great foundation to build – and it simultaneously prepares you should your kid tell you one day they don’t agree with the gender on their birth certificate. It also helps foster more open-minded kids who will one day become open-minded adults – and who doesn’t want that?
3. Host a ‘Justice 4 MC’ Party Fundraiser
MC, an intersex child, was adopted by Mark and Pam Crawford about ten years ago. In first grade, he bravely stood before his classroom and declared that he was no longer a girl, but a boy. Bravery doesn’t begin to explain it.
In 2013, InterACT Legal (formerly Advocates for Informed Choice) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a first of its kind legal complaint on behalf of MC’s parents, claiming the state and its medical staff failed to keep MC’s best interests at hand.
Our strict socially constructed sex and gender binary lead to MC’s situation. And this is why you should throw a #Justice4MC fundraiser party! Educate your guests about the case and screen an award winning intersex documentary or watch this short Buzzfeed video.
Alternatively, start a book club during your pregnancy and read things like Contesting Intersex: A Dubious Diagnosis, Fixing Sex, or Middlesex. Contact AIC beforehand and request some brochures, or print them out at home to share with guests. Don’t miss out on the incredibly rich “What We Wish Our ______ Knew” series created by intersex youth.
***
Gender myths are sexist and create an unnecessary hierarchy that lays the groundwork for many of the unequal discrepancies experienced by people in our society.
Sex and gender aren’t rigid qualities represented only by pink or blue. Instead, I like to think of them like chocolate and vanilla: Some people like one, neither, or both, and this can change over time – no biggie.
With the breathtaking array of sex and gender expression that exist in the world, do gender reveal parties even make sense anymore?
In this video – capturing a young boy’s meltdown upon seeing pink frosting – there is a really beautiful part pre-meltdown after his father asks his kids what they believe their unborn baby sibling’s gender will be.
His son guesses a boy, his eldest daughter guesses a girl, and the youngest daughter – whose response drew laughter, but was the wisest of all – answered, “a baby.”

http://www.eater.com/2016/3/11/11203418/joes-crab-shack-hanging-photo-controversy



Joe's Crab Shack Under Fire for Using Image of a Lynching as Interior Decor

by Whitney Filloon Mar 11, 2016, 11:00a @whitneyfilloon  



Casual seafood chain Joe's Crab Shack is on the receiving end of some extremely bad publicity this week, and it's well-deserved: A couple who visited a Minneapolis-area location recently were shocked and disgusted to find a photo of a lynching displayed on one of the restaurant's tables, reports CBS Minnesota.
Tyrone Williams and Chauntyll Allen sat down at a Joe's in Roseville, Minn. when they discovered the decorative tabletop had a picture embedded in it "that depicted two black men being lynched by a white mob, with the caption next to one of the victims that read, 'All I said was that I didn’t like the gumbo.'" According to CBS, the couple did some brief research while still at the restaurant and found that the photo depicted a real-life lynching that occurred back in 1896. They spoke to the restaurant's manager, who apologized but also said that it was likely other restaurants had similar tables.


https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/s851x315/12804836_1090001877686683_1633802655917213068_n.jpg?oh=e70dedb274337a97fcc9f46d4e4d0d75&oe=57614B56



Tyrone Williams
on Wednesday
This is on our table at Joe's Crab shack in Roseville, MN it's the lynching of two black men in Groesbeck, Texas in 1895 they we're accused of robbing and murdering a white man with a rock it's sad this is the image we have to look at in a Crab shack that has nothing to do with Texas it's crazy how a brother can't get a break me and Chauntyll Allen can't get a break lol we just wanted some all you can eat Crab legs smh and now we got to go. We can't take this shit no mo




In a press release issued yesterday by the Minneapolis arm of the NAACP, chapter president Nekima Levy-Pounds said, "This disturbing incident that occurred at Joe's Crab Shack, demonstrates that racism is still alive and well in this country. It is sickening to know that someone would make a mockery of black men being savagely lynched and then use that imagery for decorative purposes in a restaurant. We demand accountability of Joe's Crab Shack for allowing racist material to appear in its restaurants. This is completely unacceptable."
The group is asking for a public apology from the Joe's Crab Shack corporate office, and also asking for the "immediate removal of any and all lynching or otherwise racially-offensive imagery from its restaurants," as well as "a donation to a local community-based organization that serves African American youths and teenagers." Clearly someone on the Joe's design team needs to be fired for this one.



The group is asking for a public apology from the Joe's Crab Shack corporate office, and also asking for the "immediate removal of any and all lynching or otherwise racially-offensive imagery from its restaurants," as well as "a donation to a local community-based organization that serves African American youths and teenagers."



So what it really comes down to is a ‘community organizer’ using extortion in order to get money.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Guess they just don’t wanna “take this shit no mo”.



http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/03/photo-in-joes-crab-shack-decor-was-a-hanging-not-a-lynching/

Photo in Joe’s Crab Shack decor was a hanging, not a lynching

Bob Collins March 11, 2016, 9:20 AM7

There’s no question that making a joke out of a hanging, as Joe’s Crab Shack did with a picture of a black man being hanged, is offensive and stupid.
“It’s a very disturbing and ugly part of American history,” Nekima Levy-Pounds, president of the Minneapolis NAACP, told MPR’s Mukhtar Ibrahim in his story today.
“They are trying to make a joke out of our black bodies being lynched and I had a real problem with that,” said Chauntyll Allen, a community activist, who first raised the objection to the picture.
From a historical point of view, it has to be pointed out that it’s a poor representation of the lynching of African Americans because it wasn’t a lynching. It was an execution. That obviously doesn’t excuse the ugliness of the use of the photo, but a lynching — this one, for example — is a murder without a trial. The history depicted in the photograph isn’t a lynching, at least some historians don’t think so.
Apparently, the title of the photograph — Last Hanging in Brown County — is also wrong.
The hanging took place in Limestone County,Texas according to historian Clay Riley.
On May 3, 1894, a pioneer resident of Groesbeck, James Garrett McKinnon, was robbed and bludgeoned to death with a stone. A man was arrested for the death, tried and convicted. The sentence was hanging. Prior to 1903, death penalties were performed in the county seats of the respective counties. After that date, the State of Texas carried out all executions at the Huntsville Penitentiary.
On April 12, 1895, at Groesbeck, Texas, Limestone County, Richard Burleson was hanged for the crime for which he had been convicted.
Did Burleson receive a fair trial or was he hanged because he was black? It’s hard to say; there isn’t a record of the events of the trial.
But of the 10 executions in Texas between 1895 and 1910, seven of the convicted were black.
A relative of McKinnon’s researched the case 10 years ago and said Burleson was a freed slave who robbed his grandfather of a $20 gold piece. The two had been seen earlier in the day.
“James offered Burleson a ride in his wagon, Burleson accepted, then clubbed James over the head with a rock,” Tom McKinnon of Arizona wrote of his research. The victim was his great grandfather, he said.

'They're shocked!' Obama mocks GOP establishment for handling of Trump

Quote :

President Obama has made little effort to conceal his disdain for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump's anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. But at a speech to Democrats in Austin, Tex. Friday, he pointedly blamed establishment Republicans for creating the environment that led to Trump's rise.
In remarks as sharply critical as he's ever been about the state of the 2016 GOP presidential race, Obama called the GOP presidential debate a combination of "fantasy, and school yard taunts, and sellin' stuff like it's the Home Shopping Network." 
Obama called Trump

Quote :

"a distillation of what has been going on in their party for more than a decade,"

saying comparing establishment Republicans to Captain Louis Renault from the movie Casablanca.

Quote :

"We're shocked someone is fanning anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim sentiment!" he said. "We're shocked! We're shocked that someone could be loose with the facts. Or distort someone's record. Shocked!

Quote :

"How could you be shocked? This was the guy who was sure I was born in Kenya. And wasn't letting go," he said. "As long as it was being directed at me they were fine with it. It was a hoot — and suddenly they're shocked! That gambling's going on in this establishment,"

he said.
Obama said the GOP message during his presidency is to "deny the evidence of science" or to accuse the other side of treason.

"Look it up, that's what they've been saying. So they can't be surprised when somebody says, 'I can make up stuff better than that," he said.
The remarks at a Democratic National Committee event at Austin Music Hall came the day after Obama rebutted arguments that he was partly to blame for the Republican party "crackup."
Earlier, at a technology event at South by Southwest Interactive Festival, Obama reclaimed an Internet hashtag meme critical of his presidency. 

Quote :

"Unemployment is now below 5%, and we avoided a Great Depression," he said. "Thanks, Obama."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388433/feminists-slow-motion-sexist-katherine-timpf

Quote :

Feminist critics claim the video objectifies women because it uses slow motion, and television show Baywatch also used slow motion, and since Baywatch was misogynistic, the video is misogynistic, too.

Seriously?  WTF?

Just one more nail in the coffin for freedom of speech.
Thanks, Lefties - this is your way of making America great.



http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2016/04/13/3768935/tulane-frat-students-border-wall/



Frat Brothers Build A Mock ‘Border Wall’ In Honor Of Donald Trump



BY ESTHER YU-HSI LEE  APR 13, 2016 10:59 AM

A group of fraternity brothers at Tulane University are taking some heat for building a mock “border wall” around their frat house emblazoned with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s name and his oft-cited slogan “Make America Great Again.”
The Kappa Alpha brothers insist the wall, which was constructed out of sandbags, was meant as a joke. But many of their fellow students found it offensive and disrespectful to people of color on campus. And it’s become just the latest example in a string of incidents invoking Trump’s name as somewhat of a racial slur that connotes xenophobia, particularly against Muslims and immigrants.
The KA chapter at Tulane said in a statement that the wall was meant to “mock the ideologies of a political candidate.”
“Our chapter takes KA’s values of gentlemanly conduct very seriously,” KA’s statement read. “This respect extends to every student of Tulane and every member of the broader community. A comment was written on a makeshift wall on our private property, normally used for a game of capture the flag, to mock the ideologies of a political candidate. This had a unintended negative effect and as such it has been dismantled.”
But other students didn’t think the sentiment came across as a joke. According to The Tab, a news site produced by university students, the Tulane football team took down the sandbags as one fraternity brother shouted that they should stop disturbing private property.
An online petition quickly began circulating to “stand in solidarity” with the individuals who dismantled the wall and has generated 622 signatures in the past 12 hours. The petition argues that Trump’s name and his “Make America Great Again” slogan have “connotations that reverberate beyond this campus and into the larger xenophobic and racist discourse that has surrounded this general election.”
“By writing ‘TRUMP’ in large, red letters across their ‘wall,’ KA changed what was a tradition of building a wall into a tradition of constructing a border, symbolizing separation and xenophobia,” Khristyan Anthonee Trejo, a Tulane University student, wrote in a public Facebook post about the sandbag ‘border wall.’ “This issue not only affects Latinos but all other marginalized immigrant groups in this country.”
“This really pushed it overboard for students of color on campus,” Trejo told USA Today College. “It’s one thing to see an endorsement of Trump on campus — that’s freedom of speech — but it’s another to see the wall when it’s a symbol of racism and oppression. As someone with family across the (Mexico-United States) border and knowing people are murdered at the border every day, for (KA) to treat it as a joke and try to justify their actions with satire — well, it’s not a joke to students of color.”
It’s understandable why students like Trejo are upset by the mock border wall. Trump has built his presidential campaign on the promise that he would make America great by building a border wall that would keep out undocumented immigrants, a category of people that he has broadly condemned as criminals and drug dealers. And just as commonplace as his broad generalization of undocumented immigrants are his slurs surrounding Muslims and other people of color. Since Trump’s campaign began, his xenophobic rhetoric has injected itself in everyday life, with an uptick in the number of violent incidents against immigrants, Latinos, Muslims, and blacks.
At Trump rallies, the candidate’s supporters have behaved violently toward peaceful protesters, including punching, screaming, dragging, hurling insults, and spitting on people who disagree with his policy plans. Trump has failed to condemn his more violent supporters. Rather, he has arguedthat a Black Lives Matter protester deserved to be roughed up, and even told a crowd that he wanted to punch a protester in the face.

Uh oh...I think I smell a Drumph supporter

Oh shit, I will not be able to sleep tonight knowing that a frat house at Tulane University has lost it's "freedom of speech". Those frat boys will be sacarred for life.
Did dean Wormer have anything to do with this atrocity?

Except nobody was stripped of their rights Flounder, the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.
It turns out it was the right move to take the wall down.
After all who in their right mind wants to be associated with republicans & their front runner a narcisistic racist jackass..

That's right Flounder, based on my fucking gand opinion which is based on what was and wasn't said by the local and national chapters of the fraternity.
There was no outrage, no whining and crying about free speech.
It's obvious to anybody with a working brain that they did not want to be identified with a racist buffoon.

What I would do is really none of your fucking business because this is not about me, it's about what happened at Tulane. The point is that the frat house let it go & did not object to the dismantling and that's also none of your business....now is it?
They're not bitching about free speech so why are you?

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

   
So may I presume that you would have no problem with someone coming onto your private property and dismantling something of yours that he or she, for whatever reason, found offensive?
Would you give that person a free pass for his or her actions based upon the fact that he or she was exercising his or her right to free speech?

edge540 wrote:

What I would do is really none of your fucking business because this is not about me, it's about what happened at Tulane. The point is that the frat house let it go & did not object to the dismantling and that's also none of your business....now is it?
They're not bitching about free speech so why are you?

My, my, my.
Touchy, touchy, touchy.
I can certainly understand why you’d get that way when you are unable to answer a quite simple question.
It’s not about who did or did not bitch about it. It is about whether stifling someone’s freedom of speech on their own private property is acceptable or unacceptable.
Unless you tell me otherwise, I will have to assume that you place such an act in the ‘acceptable’ column.
I’ll remember that for future reference.

I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.
Nobody ever said it was acceptable.