I almost feel bad judging one as worse than the other. They're both worse. Gun to the head, though, KKK. But it doesn't matter either one is a problem. And to clarify, the comment of mine you quoted wasn't supposed to be is he in this or that because one or bad, it was asking whether he was in either of them, since either is bad.
So to clarify, is it your opinion that anyone who ever knowingly did anything offensive in their life as an adult is disqualified from public office for life, no matter what they have done the rest of their life?
Dems made Al Franken resign over a photo of him pretending to grab a girls boob. What do you think they will do in this instance? Of course he should resign. White people..... DONT BLACKFACE. Just don’t. Why is this so freaking hard to understand? Why even put black makeup on your face for any reason?? Why? Idiots.
2006. Lots of people disagreed with the forced resignation. And it was arguably a criminal act (between that and the other accusations). So same question to you: is it your opinion that anyone who ever knowingly did anything offensive in their life as an adult is disqualified from public office for life, no matter what they have done the rest of their life?
No anyone that did Blackface cannot represent the Democratic Party who fight for civil and human rights as a primary flagship issue. No anyone who abused women cannot represent the Democratic Party who fight for Women’s Rights as a primary flagship issue. You can.... however....get away with being in a rock band, smoking a bit of weed, or saying the word F$&@. We are cool with stuff like that. Black face and sexual abuse.... off limits.
Well, I'm almost the same age as this guy and I've never thought anything about the Klan or people wearing blackface was humorous or fun. The is the 80's we are talking about, not the 30's or 40's. I know there are a lot of young people here at Clutchfans and the 80's to them is just a time in history that they didn't experience, or maybe a time they were too young to remember. Big big difference between what people thought was acceptable before the 60's and then after the 60's. This was the 80's. It wasn't all that long ago, and not all that different than today in most respects in my opinion. I don't know if the guy should resign or not. But, the fact that he did this as recently as the 80's and was an adult at the time says a lot about his upbringing and the environment he grew up in. I can understand why some people in Virginia, especially African Americans, might not want him to be their Governor.
I think it goes two different ways. He can't hide behind "It was a different time" excuse. He could say that he was wrong and knew it was wrong at the time but did it anyway if he had a coming clean moment prior to now. It's too late to have one now, though he could try, quite, and then seriously dedicate himself to doing whatever a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center told him to do and work as an intern for them or something.
If only that standard applied to everyone, including the Democrat left's political adversaries, this could just be an embarrassing moment and everyone would shake their heads for a moment and move on. But no. The Democrat left these days is distinguished by its mass-media-led, social media lynch-mob style campaigns against people to target them and ruin their lives. These tactics really are looking eerily similar to what was done by the Russian communists, the Nazis under Hitler and the social campaigns under Mao during the last century. The issue here should not be the behavior of this or that politician, it should be the outrageously unacceptable behavior of the Democrat left and the media with these incredibly hateful, frequently bigoted, shockingly intolerant lynch mob style campaigns that are routinely targeted at American citizens these days, usually for blatantly partisan political purposes. And in nearly every case that I can immediately recall, these campaigns were led by the left leaning mass media and were frequently based to at least some degree on 'fake news'.
I have to disagree, there is a huge difference between now and the early 80's especially in Virginia. I was in college the n in Virginia and it has been a huge change. Black people where not that outraged about black face at that time I remember we loved Silver Streak at the HBCU I attended.
That's a great question. I'm struggling coming up with my own answer because I see how inconsistent my viewpoint is from situation to situation. I think some of those that were accused (or admitted culpability) during MeToo deserve another chance at their chosen careers. I don't know why on an emotional level this seems worse to me because I can certainly see valid arguments that it is not. The obvious answer is "no" to anything offensive, but I'm not sure how to draw the line even for myself because my reactions seem driven by gut feelings that I'm not sure I can even identify or quantify. I think here maybe the best thing is to let the next election cycle deal with him, but I wouldn't want it from my Governor. Edit: To be clear, I was not comparing blackface to some of the rape allegations. I was referring to some of the allegations that fell far short of that.
Blackface was well understood to be offensive and socially unacceptable back in the 1980s. While it's obviously true that most young people in their teens and early 20s have done all sorts of stupid things, a 25 year old person is old enough and should be mature enough to have at least some comprehension of how the real world works and what's socially unacceptable. Unless he had some ridiculously ignorant (or racist) parents, Northam likely knew exactly what he was doing back then. I agree that context needs to be taken into consideration, and I also think that immediately deciding to utterly ruin an adult's life over something they did as a kid or something they did several decades ago is problematic and a bad look for our society. People change, and a person's worldview can evolve quite dramatically between the ages of 18 and 30, since that's typically the time period where one "discovers oneself", learns a lot about the real world, and makes major life-altering decisions (get married, have a kid, buy a house, etc). That said, it's going to be difficult for a lot of people to ever forgive a person that did reprehensible actions such as blackface or wearing a KKK hood, no matter how long ago the action was done. From now on, when people look at Northam, one of the first things that will come to many of their minds is that he did this reprehensible act back in the 80s. Northam has been branded and defined as such, and I doubt he'll ever be able to fully wash that away, no matter what he does from now on. So politically speaking...even if Northam has truly changed his views for the better, it may still be in the best interests of Virginia for him to step down. And I say that as someone that strongly believes that today's "outrage culture" is absurd and way over the top. It's also interesting that this came out now and didn't come out prior to his election. It's very likely that multiple people in the media and in political circles knew about this for a long time and intentionally sat on it.
So let's say someone was raised in backwoods America and abused women or did blackface. And then as he grew older, he learned and became better. And then he dedicated 10 or 20 years to improving society and made a huge positive impact for minorities or women, and those communities loved him. In that scenario, that person still can't represent the Democratic Party? Once you have sinned once, you are shunned for life? (again, I know nothing about this guy - I'm speaking purely as a hypothetical) I view that kind of intolerance as opposite of what the Democratic Party preaches in so many ways. Things like criminal justice reform and prison rehabilitation, recognizing that people's upbringings are partly responsible for their outcomes and that people can be changed, etc. I would not want to be any part of a group of people that thought that way. I think if you go through government and history, there are lots of people that formerly had disgusting views that ended up heroes and made a huge positive impact in society. To have denied them those opportunities seems absurd and would have resulted in a much worse society.
Keep in mind this was pre-internet and pre-social media and large pre-cable. In the 80's, different areas of the country grew up differently and were exposed to different things - still true today, but far more so then. Just because *you* knew something doesn't mean he did, unless you grew up in his community. Remember, this was an era when movies made fun of sexual assault (see the thread in the hangout), Speedy Gonzales was not remotely considered racist, etc. This is a UB40 music video from 1980:
Lol of course people are defending that, god damn son. The left would kill anybody on the left who took a picture in blackface next to a clans member outfit. Get real.
Yes. Anyone who has committed the crime of abusing women, or whom has a seriously racist past should never be granted a paid position to represent the people. If they changed who they are then thats great for them, I'm personally glad they are a better person. If they would like to volunteer their services to the community which may have huge positive impacts for society then I applaud that. I would not, however allow them to attain a paid position to represent people, whom some, they victimized in their past. That is my position Just like I have a position that sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of schools or daycare centers. These sex offenders may have had a change of heart, they may now be the most gentle beings walking the earth. These previous sex offenders may do wonders for the community, they may donate to the orphanage.. I still would never allow them to work inside of a daycare or around children. I really don't feel like my position is unreasonable.
I agree that it really is more about how he responds to this now than the action itself. Robert Byrd's history is the perfect example of someone being a racist and changing for the better and becoming a civil rights activist...and Byrd was an actual member of the KKK. For me, I'm fine with either option but he needs to show that he's matured and that there's no chance that he holds any racial animus towards blacks.
