New York Times glorifies bullying of teen girl

False. The article's critical of the outing of the girl three years later. It's also critical of racism. Too complex for you to handle?

What are the politics of the school board, principal, and cheer coach in Leesburg, Virginia? Are they really all democrats? School censorship goes beyond party. Most of the NY Times reader comments condemn the school for its actions because they favor free speech.

Paradoxical wrote:

I wonder if this comment would get the same reactions if it were made about Trump or his supporter.

A test was essentially made in the roughly 2007 case involving the kid with the sign 'Bong hits 4 Jesus." The self-described strongest 1st Amendment advocate for the court, Justice Roberts, ruled against the student. If it had not been a kind of anti-religious (or satire of religious belief) message, but something pro-religious or anti-Democrat he likely would have ruled for the student.

Tell us more about this tribe, oh wise one.

zcxvcxzv wrote:

False. The article's critical of the outing of the girl three years later. It's also critical of racism. Too complex for you to handle?

False. The article called what happened to the 15 year old girl, including that the video was strategically raised to cause her harm three years later, a "racial reckoning" - meaning a score had been fairly settled and justice upon this child had been fairly administered. And being "critical of racism" is certainly a meaningless gesture (thrown in to capture you virtue-signalers' attention) in circumstances where there is not even a tinge of racism to begin with.

The NYT, which is on record as doubting "cancel culture" even exists, was engaging in canceling this 15 year old girl by throwing her name out to a permanent and much wider audience. Most media refuse to even publish names of minors accused of crimes, but the NYT had no such concern further outing this child for her absolutely benign, inconsequential behavior from three years ago. Pathetic.

Is this too complex for you? You come off as nothing but an apologist for the New York Times and its more increasingly demented reporting.

A racial reckoning is a return on an original racist remark. It doesn't mean that the Times's reporter thought that it was justified to handle it in this way and the vast majority of the readers opposed the restriction on free speech and the vindictiveness of the response. Condemning racism is not virtue signaling; it is virtuous action.

timeshavechanged wrote:

non-affirmative action hire wrote:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1343285572295663619?s=20

Democrats are evil.

The problem is not Democrats. The problem is people who do not raise their children properly. If you want to blame someone, blame the girl's parents. Parents who raise their children in the year 2020 as if they are living in the same world in which they grew up are demonstrating a lack of the most basic of parenting skills. By the way, to be clear, racist behavior was never okay; it's just no longer fashionable to be openly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. - in spite of the fact that the last 4 years may have led some people to believe that they had the green light to air their ugliness for all the world to see.

This girl is clearly not racist so your post makes no sense.

As other posters have pointed out, context is important and she was singing along with a song. Calling people racist when it doesn't apply is brutal. In this case, the girl didn't get into her chosen university which is the fault of the university. Cancel culture is ridiculous.

This problem is predominantly fuelled by Democrats.

The last 10 years or so, it seems like the USA has developed an autoimmune disease like response to racism.

xczvzxcv wrote:

A racial reckoning is a return on an original racist remark. It doesn't mean that the Times's reporter thought that it was justified to handle it in this way and the vast majority of the readers opposed the restriction on free speech and the vindictiveness of the response. Condemning racism is not virtue signaling; it is virtuous action.

First of all, to whom am I speaking, XCZVZXCV or ZCXVCXZV?

False. Wrong. A "racial reckoning" is not a "return on an original racist remark" whatever that even means. The NYT was stating that that 15 year old child got her just deserts - she got what she deserved, she was reckoned with. That is what "reckoning" in the title is saying to a literate reader. Furthermore, the child's video did NOT, as you claim, contain a "racist remark." You would have to be gooned on woke juice to believe the child was being or saying anything racist when she sang "the N-word" rap style after passing her driver's test. There is a video of Quentin Tarantino from Youtube in this very thread that has more racial edge to it ("dead N-word storage"), and no one, not even the wokes like you, condemn it as racist. The NYT finds Tarantino a less engaging target to bully and cancel, than children apparently are.

Furthermore, condemning racism, in this context (and most contexts) is absolutely virtue signaling. Despite what you woke types desire and pretend to believe, nearly everyone condemns racism. When the NYT or anyone throws in condemnation or criticism of racism, they may as well be puffing their chest and boldly announcing "we are against bad stuff!" It's that meaningless and easy a gesture. Yet for emotional reasons, people like you enjoying reacting to it.

Jimmy is jealous of the pretty white girl. It is as simple as that.

“If she hadn’t worn that dress and walked home alone, she wouldn’t have been raped. What happened to the girl was unfair, but the situation was easily avoidable.”

Congratulations on winning the worst analogy of the day award.

The article never said that. Your claims show that you have no regard for truth, only the need to get the liberals. The Times is very clear in its editorial policy. This article is factual and shows that while the girl did something harmful to others, she faced a retaliation years after far beyond the scope of the original remarks. You're demonizing something that exists only in your imagination.

This girl should count herself lucky,she's only losing a college placement and not her life.

Emmett Till allegedly whistled at a white woman and lost his life,murdered by white men.

This ain't 1857 wrote:

This girl should count herself lucky,she's only losing a college placement and not her life.

Emmett Till allegedly whistled at a white woman and lost his life,murdered by white men.

Always good to see a representative of BLM show up for discussion. They inject a degree of logic and reason into discussions that no one else can.

Wrong. False. The article used the term "reckoning" in the title, and that word and its meaning has been explained to you at least twice now. A literate reader would understand that to mean the child was reckoned with - that fair, calculated and deserved justice had been administered. That was explained to you and had nothing in response.

It was also pointed out to you that the child most certainly did NOT do "something harmful to others," or, as you characterized her singing in your earlier post, make a "racist remark." She didn't say or do anything harmful or racist to anyone. You failed to back up your claim of racism or harm in any way.

It was also explained to you that condemnations of racism in most circumstances are cheap, easy and almost meaningless words/qualifications. It's also virtue-signaling. Anyone can do it, and it's done as boilerplate all the time. You had nothing to say on that point.

Your claims, which you seem incapable of supporting, show you have no regard for the truth, only a reaction to defend the NY Times on an issue in which they are clearly wrong. Pick your battles wisely and with more care, otherwise you will come off as Woke, rather than literate, objective, analytical, fair or intelligent.

Imagine actually believing this thread title is accurate.

Volt Stax wrote:

This ain't 1857 wrote:

This girl should count herself lucky,she's only losing a college placement and not her life.

Emmett Till allegedly whistled at a white woman and lost his life,murdered by white men.

Always good to see a representative of BLM show up for discussion. They inject a degree of logic and reason into discussions that no one else can.

It's called personal responsibility. Stop playing the victim and raising your children to believe they are somehow persecuted because they cannot use the N word without consequence, they cannot sexually assault people and perhaps have it come back to haunt them (Kavanaugh, kind of), because they can no longer waltz right into elite universities just because their parents and grandparents are alum or are wealthy and well-connected. No one feels sorry for you except the other members of your "I'm so persecuted." tribe. Like it or not, the world has changed and continues to change. You may not like the changes, and perhaps Letsrun provides a safe place for people like yourself who can't deal with a world in which openly expressing bigotry is not en vogue, but regardless, fail to prepare your children for the reality of the world they now live in at your and their own peril.

We're going backwards now. The BLM guy made more sense than you do. Sexual assaults? Waltzing to university? En vogue bigotry? It's like you used a Mad Libs generator to come up with that disconnected sermon.