Texas black supremacist teacher fired after making online racist comments and death threats

originally posted by: SomeJackleg
a reply to: DBCowboy

And that is equally wrong. Free expression is free expression, anything else is conditional and totalitarian.

your are free to speak your mind, but you may have to pay the price for it.
i'm sure in her contract there's something about not encouraging or promoting racist views or violence. which is exactly what she was doing.

North Korea has the same freedom of speech that you are endorsing.

I imagine what would have happened if the teacher wasn't a 29 year old Arican American woman but a 29 year old white American male who made the same comments about some black or asian people. He would have lost his job and arrested on suspicion of racist online remarks, harassment, incitement to violence, hatred, and deaths threats.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
I imagine what would have happened if the teacher wasn't a 29 year old Arican American woman but a 29 year old white American male who made the same comments about some black or asian people. He would have lost his job and arrested on suspicion of racist online remarks, harassment, incitement to violence, hatred, and deaths threats.

If that young 29 year old white American male used the tactics of the white supremacists then he would get away with it.

White nationalists and supremacists, on accounts often run by young men, are building thriving, macho communities across social media platforms like Instagram, Telegram and TikTok, evading detection with coded hashtags and innuendo.

www.pbs.org...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Of course he would have.

I would have defended him as well and have been called a racist by the left for doing so.

As a matter of fact, I have been called a racist by many on the left here. Which is a source of great amusement for me since half of my family is black.

But we always have to defend free speech. Even if it's ugly.

a reply to: DBCowboy

North Korea has the same freedom of speech that you are endorsing.

so your saying it's all right to to incite violence or promote racist supremacy and ideas?
is promoting black racist supremacy and ideas, white racist supremacy and ideas, hispanic racist supremacy and ideas, or any other group that does that ok in your eyes?

how about promoting killing off old cowboys after all their full of sh@@ and just like to start sh@@, would that be ok?

you know jihadist promote killing U.S. citizens, is that ok? should they not be caught and punished for promoting killing U.S citizen?
how about diddling kids, is that ok?
so just say what ever the hell you want there should be no consequences for words and ideas you promote.

if so, your not the kind of person that i thought you were from reading your posts here and TOS, and think your a prime example for the need of the ignore button to be reinstated so people don't have to read that kinda crap if you really believe that.

a reply to: Gothmog

Stating they asked someone to kill someone else is not covered under the 1st Amendment.
Or any other amendment.

Learn something of the US Constitution BEFORE you post .

I'm not a Free Speech Absolutist.
So I agree with you. Some speech isn't protected.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump raised eyebrows Tuesday when he suggested there is "nothing" that can be done to stop Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court picks, except "maybe" the "Second Amendment people."
...
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
abcnews.go.com...

The teacher got fired, and excluded from teaching in the district again.

What about Trump?

a reply to: SomeJackleg

When you can start categorizing speech you have eliminated free speech.

Sorry pal, I'll always risk freedom of ugly speech over polite suppression.

a reply to: quintessentone

Nope, they had no choice because of all the protesting.

Hey yo
Who was protesting?

Lololol
You people are a laff riot

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone

Nope, they had no choice because of all the protesting.

Hey yo
Who was protesting?

Lololol
You people are a laff riot

Read the article, learn something.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
I imagine what would have happened if the teacher wasn't a 29 year old Arican American woman but a 29 year old white American male who made the same comments about some black or asian people. He would have lost his job and arrested on suspicion of racist online remarks, harassment, incitement to violence, hatred, and deaths threats.

If that young 29 year old white American male used the tactics of the white supremacists then he would get away with it.

White nationalists and supremacists, on accounts often run by young men, are building thriving, macho communities across social media platforms like Instagram, Telegram and TikTok, evading detection with coded hashtags and innuendo.

www.pbs.org...

Who says this? Your article?
You're joking?!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone

Nope, they had no choice because of all the protesting.

Hey yo
Who was protesting?

Lololol
You people are a laff riot

Read the article, learn something.

Lol
What percentage of the population at that time was black?

Lolololololol
You sit on a throne of lies!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone

Nope, they had no choice because of all the protesting.

Hey yo
Who was protesting?

Lololol
You people are a laff riot

Read the article, learn something.

I believe you haven't learnt anything yet from this case trying to support her actions and excuse her behaviour. You seem unable to justify your support going off topic and having been spotted for your inability to argue when at the same time you keep up with the usual strawman arguments about sensationalism.

You have been already 'disciplined' by other posters there is nothing sensationalist about this thread. You seem unwilling to back off from your unsubstantiated claim.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

the OP didn't post anything that wasn't true,she lives and teaches in Texas, she admits to being a racist, made "joking " death threats and she was fired.
nothing sensationalized with the title. it's all facts beard out in her posts and the article.
now if your problem is with the word supremacist i call your attention to Websters definition of racist

from websters,

1 of 2

rac·​ist ˈrā-sist also -shist Synonyms of racist : of, relating to, or characterized by racism: such as a : having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race (see race entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

.

racist 2 of 2 noun plural racists : a person who is racist : someone who holds the belief that race (see race entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

and the list of black racist who think their superior isn't just this one school teacher. it spans the whole gambit from hood rat to leaders in government. just like every race be them white, pink, yellow, blue, red or green. so come down off your high horse and give it up. your just arguing in circles to be arguing.

racists suck no matter what color or profession. it also shows in their character. in reading what has been posted in the article this lady's is sorely lacking.

They can't come up with anything valid and have been going on with this strawman argument for sometime now.

originally posted by: SomeJackleg
a reply to: quintessentone

It's click bait when the OP uses it to inject their own 'words' or narratives (woke, BLM and gender thrown in there for good measure) beyond the scope of the news article and/or mentions everything and anything other than what this topic is, simply racism.

no it's not, did the OP didn't change one word of the article? what he did was express his opinion. just like everybody else has in this thread. some are more truthful with theirs than others and don't make excuses for attacking others by claiming they are posting about something different.

here's a idea, don't like what he posts, don't click on it. no one is forcing you to read or comment. you'd probably feel a lot if you did.

I am in complete agreement with you.

a reply to: SigmaXSquared

they wrote the constitution of the united states

The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious three-fifths clause—which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation—gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths Compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. But by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
Historical Context: Constitution-and-slavery

It's been a long hard fought road to progress beyond that. I like that the Constitution can be amended.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone

Nope, they had no choice because of all the protesting.

Hey yo
Who was protesting?

Lololol
You people are a laff riot

Read the article, learn something.

I believe you haven't learnt anything yet from this case trying to support her actions and excuse her behaviour. You seem unable to justify your support going off topic and having been spotted for your inability to argue when at the same time you keep up with the usual strawman arguments about sensationalism.

You have been already 'disciplined' by other posters there is nothing sensationalist about this thread. You seem unwilling to back off from your unsubstantiated claim.

I don't support her actions and I don't support your actions, is my only message.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: SigmaXSquared

they wrote the constitution of the united states

The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious three-fifths clause—which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation—gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths Compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. But by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
Historical Context: Constitution-and-slavery

It's been a long hard fought road to progress beyond that. I like that the Constitution can be amended.

somebody who actually reads.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: SigmaXSquared

they wrote the constitution of the united states

The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious three-fifths clause—which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation—gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths Compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. But by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
Historical Context: Constitution-and-slavery

It's been a long hard fought road to progress beyond that. I like that the Constitution can be amended.

somebody who actually reads.

You should try it and find out who passed the civil rights act.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: SigmaXSquared

they wrote the constitution of the united states

The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious three-fifths clause—which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation—gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths Compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. But by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
Historical Context: Constitution-and-slavery

It's been a long hard fought road to progress beyond that. I like that the Constitution can be amended.

somebody who actually reads.

You should try it and find out who passed the civil rights act.

So should you and find out why they were forced to pass it.

a reply to: quintessentone
Lol
The white people forced them as the blacks were a fraction of the population

So your original statement is balderdash.