So, Ancestry.com made an ad, and it portrayed a scene that triggered some easily offended types Here is the ad
OK? What is the issue here? Does this pinhead who tweeted the above think that such things never happened? Has he ever heard of the Underground Railroad? Here is another who was stricken with Offendeditis
Again, does this windbag think no such events ever took place? It is a compelling ad. Two people, in love, seeking to gain freedom is offensive how exactly? Some of the tweets seem to be that a White man is seen as heroic. Yeah, that is not racist at all is it?
Here is another
acti vist race pimp trying to be the next Sharpton
Some folks just seem to be stuck on stupid. They insist, on one hand, we obsess over slavery, yet, anytime it is referenced they immediately contract severe angst. Especially if any White person, or even America is portrayed as having nay role in ending the barbarity of slavery. No, we must never allow that! All White folks are bad, and can never be credited with anything noble. Pick a side people.
From the Good Freaking Grief stack
A recent advertisement for Burger King’s Vietnamese Sweet Chili Tendercrisp burger in New Zealand was slammed by social media users and dubbed “racist.” The advertisement, which was a sponsored post on Instagram, shows customers attempting to eat the company’s new chicken burger by using giant chopsticks.
“Take your taste buds all the way to Ho Chi Minh City with our Vietnamese Sweet Chili Tendercrisp, part of our Tastes of the World range. Available for a limited time only,” the caption accompanying the video read. Several people were seen in the video struggling to eat the burger with chopsticks, some holding them in separate hands.
The advertisement sparked outrage among Asian communities on Twitter. Social media users accused Burger King of “cultural insensitivity” and “racism” for underrating the tradition of eating with chopsticks.
Maria Mo, a Korean New Zealander, posted a video of the ad slamming the brand’s use of chopsticks.
Oh no! Triggered whiners! Welcome to the age of false victimhood
Well, that is what many have suspected for a long time, given the SPLC’s decidedly leftist agenda, but now, a former insider is, well, you know
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a “highly profitable scam” that “never lived up to the values it espoused,” according to former SPLC staffer Bob Moser.
The New Yorker on Thursday published a scathing essay from Moser, now a Rolling Stone reporter, accusing the left-wing non-profit of “ripping off donors” while turning a blind eye to sexual harassment and racial discrimination within its own ranks.
The SPLC fired co-founder Morris Dees on March 13 over unspecified conduct issues.
The SPLC announced Dees’ firing after roughly two dozen SPLC employees previously signed a letter to the organization’s leadership expressing their alarm at “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism,” The Los Angeles Times reported.
As always, go read it all
I hate when smart people ask “Why would anyone fake a hate crime?”
I call it the Industrial Victimhood Complex, and it pays $$$$$. Daniel Greenfield connects the dots
“Why did Jussie Smollett do it?” a thousand anxiously clueless progressives ask.
To paraphrase Willie Sutton, because that’s where the money is.
Just ask Khalil Cavil, a Texas waiter, who raised a thousand bucks off a fake note that he wrote
himself, “We don’t tip terrorist.”
“I want people to understand that this racism, and this hatred still exists,” he claimed.
There have been multiple cases in recent years of waiters and waitresses faking racist notes and then scoring thousands in online donations for their pain and suffering before the hoax gets exposed.
A thousand bucks for a waiter equates to the millions that an actor hoped to make from a fake hate crime. The offense is the same, the social justice banks you’re robbing just get bigger for celebrities.
But so do the stakes.
Jussie Smollett’s mistake wasn’t faking a hate crime. It wasn’t even getting caught. (Most hate crime hoaxes are outed sooner or later.)
It was being stupid.
Please go read the rest
Daniel Greenfield hasit in his piece The Political Blackface of Senator Kamala Harris
It’s easy to fake being a member of a minority group that your DNA test says you can lay 1/1,024th claim to, but what’s really challenging is being a fake member of a minority group you actually do belong to.
But Kamala Harris is making being fake look easy.
The other Senator from California decided to tout her racial cred by announcing her candidacy in Oakland on or around Martin Luther King Day. It all went according to plan except that photos showed a sea of white faces in the crowd. Behind her, you could see the sort of unwashed hipsters who haven’t figured out how to shave or cut their hair, but attend every Democrat event anywhere in America.
Harris had been born in Oakland, but grew up in Berkeley and Montreal. And when the LA Times interviewed African-Americans in Oakland, it found few who thought of her as a native daughter.
But Kamala’s insistence on fake racial pandering, from her Wakanda Forever video to her claims of listening to Snoop before it was possible, makes Hillary’s hot sauce moment seem authentic.
Senator Harris began her series of racial gaffes by falsely claiming that “Two decades after Brown v. Board, I was only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Without that decision, I likely would not have become a lawyer and eventually be elected a Senator from California.”
Harris attended school in Berkeley, California, not Savannah, Georgia. Berkeley schools were not segregated by race. Her mother was an internationally famous cancer researcher and the daughter of P.V. Gopalan, a high-ranking Indian diplomat from the Brahmin caste. Her father was a professor of economics at Stanford who served as an adviser to multiple Jamaican prime ministers.
As a Los Angeles Times article described her, she was the “privileged child of foreign grad students”.
Go read it all. Sen. Harris is a phony. A phony with a far left agenda
Good Freaking Grief
A U.S. professor is deeming the classic 1964 film “Mary Poppins” racist, accusing Julie Andrews of “blacking up” her face with soot while dancing with chimney sweeps.
In a New York Times op-ed called “‘Mary Poppins,’ and a Nanny’s Shameful Flirting With Blackface,” Professor Daniel Pollack-Pelzner slammed the iconic dance scene where Poppins joins Dick Van Dyke’s Bert on a rooftop for the song “Step In Time.”
“When the magical nanny … accompanies her young charges, Michael and Jane Banks, up their chimney, her face gets covered in soot, but instead of wiping it off, she gamely powders her nose and cheeks even blacker,” Pollack-Pelzner wrote.
Are we really this hypersensitive?
Apparently Bush was a RAAAAACIST because he nominated a Black justice to the SCOTUS
The Democrat from St. Louis, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper that Bush’s record on civil rights is severely lacking compared to others honored at the park. Clay cited Bush’s appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and his opposition to some civil rights laws.
“It is a legacy that really damaged the African-American community, and what I mean by that is his appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace a giant like Thurgood Marshall,” he said. “I think that was so insulting to the African-American and to the country as a whole, because [Thomas] couldn’t hold a candle to Thurgood Marshall, as far as civil liberties, freedom, equal rights, equal justice. He’s contrary to all that.”
Yep, Justice Thomas dared to believe in the Constitution, and dared to think in a way that offends race pimps like Clay