Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on August 09, 2013, 10:40:36 am
-
"You can't afford that."
OOPS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23633768
Normally I don't give a **** about celebrity issues in the media, but this was too funny. Profiling people's ability to pay based on the colour of their skin is wrong. Doing it to the African American female owner of a media powerhouse... epic fail.
-
Urgh, not another jump-to-racism conclusion on here... this really needs stamping out, it's all too easy to play the race card because of things like this. There is no indication this has anything to do with racism.
-
Urgh, not another jump-to-racism conclusion on here... this really needs stamping out, it's all too easy to play the race card because of things like this. There is no indication this has anything to do with racism.
Lorric.
Dear Lord, Lorric.
Are you seriously trying to say that this is all some dramatic ploy in order to deliberately play the race card. Seriously.
I suggest you show your way out of the conversation before it explodes into flames, this time.
-
Urgh, not another jump-to-racism conclusion on here... this really needs stamping out, it's all too easy to play the race card because of things like this. There is no indication this has anything to do with racism.
Lorric.
Dear Lord, Lorric.
Are you seriously trying to say that this is all some dramatic ploy in order to deliberately play the race card. Seriously.
I suggest you show your way out of the conversation before it explodes into flames, this time.
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people are really, really too quick to scream racism.
Oprah, I've seen her before, she gets everywhere, it's hard not to see her. And sometimes, she looks like a housewife. That's what I'm banking on for this stupidity, that she was just out there in regular person clothes and this salesperson did something stupid.
-
This might actually be a good opportunity for an educational lesson for Lorric, Scotty.
Here's a question Lorric: What would lead a shop assistant in a luxury goods store, with no prior knowledge of the customer she's serving, to believe that customer could not afford a particular expensive item in that shop? The only information available to the shop assistant is:
-The manner in which the customer dresses.
-Any statements the customer makes about the ability of the customer to afford certain items.
-The physical appearance of the customer.
That's why this is a racist incident. I find it unlikely that the shop assistant would have made the same kind of statement to a Caucasian woman dressed in exactly the same manner, ESPECIALLY because high-end shop owners know that celebrities regularly dress in ordinary street clothes when they wish to remain quasi-anonymous.
-
This might actually be a good opportunity for an educational lesson for Lorric, Scotty.
Here's a question Lorric: What would lead a shop assistant in a luxury goods store, with no prior knowledge of the customer she's serving, to believe that customer could not afford a particular expensive item in that shop? The only information available to the shop assistant is:
-The manner in which the customer dresses.
-Any statements the customer makes about the ability of the customer to afford certain items.
-The physical appearance of the customer.
That's why this is a racist incident. I find it unlikely that the shop assistant would have made the same kind of statement to a Caucasian woman dressed in exactly the same manner.
Well, you can see my post above.
You're just making an assumption and it's not fair. How would you feel if the assumption was made about you? The salesperson was stupid.
-
So, I'm legitimately not trying to play the angry mod, but I really have to ask.
Lorric, are you saying that "It wasn't racism because the salesperson was just stupid"?
My follow up question: why does the salesperson being stupid not make it racism?
-
Lorric, you really need to educate yourself on the nuances of systemic and implicit racism.
-
So, I'm legitimately not trying to play the angry mod, but I really have to ask.
Lorric, are you saying that "It wasn't racism because the salesperson was just stupid"?
My follow up question: why does the salesperson being stupid not make it racism?
Please don't be angry with me. If we stay civil, there doesn't have to be a problem here. Let's just talk.
Now I'm not saying I know it wasn't racism. I'm saying we don't know it was.
It's been imagined that this was done out of racism. So let me let you imagine a new scenario. It says the bag was kept behind a screen. Maybe the salesperson had had to bring that bag out countless times and had grown tired of it, and didn't want to bring it out anymore unless they were sure someone was going to buy it.
And that's besides me saying it could have been assumed by Oprah's clothing that she couldn't afford it.
It's still wrong to judge by appearance under any circmstances, but not as wrong as racism, and this person doesn't deserve to have this thrown at them with such flimsy circumstances.
If white celebrity X had been turned away in the same way, I doubt it would have made the news.
-
OK Scotty, Ryan: stop engaging with him. This is going exactly the same way every other Lorric thread does, and in lieu of him being actually held responsible for that it's up to you not to give him anything to misunderstand and argue with.
-
Lorric, this is an issue of racism, there is no doubt about it. What we know or do not know about the clerk in question is irrelevant. Without some form of mild, institutionalized racism on her part, this would not have happened. The implicit assumption that someone who looks and dresses a certain way is not and can not be a customer is fundamentally a racist one.
Phantom Hoover: You are not a moderator. Do not try to act like one.
That being said, Lorric: Remember that there is a strict limit to our willingness and capacity to indulge you. Topics you should research before reentering this thread are casual and systemic racism.
-
It should be pointed out that, according to TFA, the store / clerk have not disputed the events as described by Oprah. They have claimed that (paraphrasing here) "Gee, the clerk's English isn't that great."
--
Lorric, I would very much like to hear an alternate theory that logically follows from a salesclerk refusing to sell an item. Bonus points if you can make it fit the chain of events as described.
-
It should be pointed out that, according to TFA, the store / clerk have not disputed the events as described by Oprah. They have claimed that (paraphrasing here) "Gee, the clerk's English isn't that great."
--
Lorric, I would very much like to hear an alternate theory that logically follows from a salesclerk refusing to sell an item. Bonus points if you can make it fit the chain of events as described.
It could be clothes, they could be tired of getting the bag out, they may have had nothing but window shoppers the whole day or more... we don't know why. It could be anything.
Lorric, this is an issue of racism, there is no doubt about it. What we know or do not know about the clerk in question is irrelevant. Without some form of mild, institutionalized racism on her part, this would not have happened. The implicit assumption that someone who looks and dresses a certain way is not and can not be a customer is fundamentally a racist one.
Phantom Hoover: You are not a moderator. Do not try to act like one.
That being said, Lorric: Remember that there is a strict limit to our willingness and capacity to indulge you. Topics you should research before reentering this thread are casual and systemic racism.
If it was someone white, how would that be racism? It could happen to someone white. Ever watched the film Pretty Woman? Same thing.
Look, I'm not saying it's impossible that this is racism, it's certainly possible.
Let me try and point out what my problem here is. The only fact we have here is what happened with the bag, that's it. We don't know why.
My problem is jumping to a conclusion of racism, when the facts are so sparse. Pronouncing someone guilty of racism before they've even had a chance to open their mouth and explain themselves.
-
The facts of the case are this:
Ms Winfrey entered a shop, and checked out a bag. The clerk there told her that it would be "too expensive for her". Given that the clerk didn't recognize her, and thus only had her first impressions to go on (that of a dressed-down, African-American woman), there are only very few conclusions we can draw about her behaviour. One is that she definitely was guilty of classism, since she had no way of evaluating the affluence of the prospective customer, and so went with her first impressions.
Now, this is bad customer service no matter how you look at it. Whether or not a white woman in a similar situation would be treated differently is doubtful, if we're talking just about classism.
However, under the circumstances, we do have to add racism into the mix as well. This is arguably harder to substantiate. It would fit into the picture, however.
What you need to realize, Lorric, is that racism comes.in many forms, from the idiot in the street yelling at the Asians to the store clerk who refuses service to someone just based on how the customer looks.
This everyday racism is absolutely pervasive in our society. You will see it everywhere, if you look, but you, as a presumably white male, will never be a victim of it.
It does not surprise me that you have difficulty seeing this. We already discussed similar issues in the "Tropes vs Women" thread, where you were similarly unaware of the actual issue at play.
For your sake, please read up on the issue. I just know that, when you read this, you will feel bound to post a response. Please take your time with it. Do not once again post something right off the top of your head.
-
It should be pointed out that, according to TFA, the store / clerk have not disputed the events as described by Oprah. They have claimed that (paraphrasing here) "Gee, the clerk's English isn't that great."
--
Lorric, I would very much like to hear an alternate theory that logically follows from a salesclerk refusing to sell an item. Bonus points if you can make it fit the chain of events as described.
It could be clothes, they could be tired of getting the bag out, they may have had nothing but window shoppers the whole day or more... we don't know why. It could be anything.
No points for you.
A person working in a high-end establishment wouldn't risk their job over such trivialities.
If it was someone white, how would that be racism? It could happen to someone white. Ever watched the film Pretty Woman? Same thing.
Look, I'm not saying it's impossible that this is racism, it's certainly possible.
Let me try and point out what my problem here is. The only fact we have here is what happened with the bag, that's it. We don't know why.
My problem is jumping to a conclusion of racism, when the facts are so sparse. Pronouncing someone guilty of racism before they've even had a chance to open their mouth and explain themselves.
#1a. Pretty Woman was a (pretty terrible) fictional film. This is real life. As much as art is supposed to mirror life, I don't think a film from 1990 qualifies in the year 2013.
#1b. There is a pretty big difference between being dressed in an outfit that makes you look like a prostitute and an outfit that makes you look like Jane Everywoman Please-Don't-Take-Photographs-Of-Me-Esq.
#1c. We are assuming that Oprah wore civvies (as opposed to celebbies, which would be even worse). The article doesn't mention what she was wearing at all (and I don't feel like looking up something like this because I don't give a rats ass about celebrities as a general rule).
#2. We do know why, the clerk said the Oprah was too poor to afford the purse in question. That the shop and clerk have actively not disputed Oprah's version of events is an admission that that is how it happened (even if it wasn't and even if there was more to it).
In general, I agree that people are too quick to jump to conclusions and allegations of racism (among other things). This is not one of those cases.
But then, let me ask you this: Do you find it more or less probable that this was a racially motivated incident? (Feel free to ponder on this for a while)
--
This everyday racism is absolutely pervasive in our society. You will see it everywhere, if you look, but you, as a presumably white male, will never be a victim of it.
Psh. They're called scholarships, man. :P
-
No points for you.
A person working in a high-end establishment wouldn't risk their job over such trivialities.
This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.
#1a. Pretty Woman was a (pretty terrible) fictional film. This is real life. As much as art is supposed to mirror life, I don't think a film from 1990 qualifies in the year 2013.
#1b. There is a pretty big difference between being dressed in an outfit that makes you look like a prostitute and an outfit that makes you look like Jane Everywoman Please-Don't-Take-Photographs-Of-Me-Esq.
#1c. We are assuming that Oprah wore civvies (as opposed to celebbies, which would be even worse). The article doesn't mention what she was wearing at all (and I don't feel like looking up something like this because I don't give a rats ass about celebrities as a general rule).
#2. We do know why, the clerk said the Oprah was too poor to afford the purse in question. That the shop and clerk have actively not disputed Oprah's version of events is an admission that that is how it happened (even if it wasn't and even if there was more to it).
In general, I agree that people are too quick to jump to conclusions and allegations of racism (among other things). This is not one of those cases.
But then, let me ask you this: Do you find it more or less probable that this was a racially motivated incident? (Feel free to ponder on this for a while)
1a. Yes I knew someone would pull the "it's not real" card. The question is is it believable. I think it is. And I think it does, 1990 is irrelevant in this case.
1b. Prostitute, eh? I don't think she looked like a prostitute, and I've seen celebs in similar sort of attire snapped on the street. I'll be putting the scene in question in at the end.
2. We don't know why the clerk reached that conclusion.
I don't know. That's my main point. I lack the information to make such a judgement, and it disturbs me that others have done.
Vid:
The facts of the case are this:
Ms Winfrey entered a shop, and checked out a bag. The clerk there told her that it would be "too expensive for her". Given that the clerk didn't recognize her, and thus only had her first impressions to go on (that of a dressed-down, African-American woman), there are only very few conclusions we can draw about her behaviour. One is that she definitely was guilty of classism, since she had no way of evaluating the affluence of the prospective customer, and so went with her first impressions.
Now, this is bad customer service no matter how you look at it. Whether or not a white woman in a similar situation would be treated differently is doubtful, if we're talking just about classism.
This I agree with.
However, under the circumstances, we do have to add racism into the mix as well. This is arguably harder to substantiate. It would fit into the picture, however.
And this I also agree with. It's the certainty that bothers me. I acknowledge the possibility, it is people just making the assumption I have the real problem with. The conclusion jump is the issue, not the idea that this could be racially motivated. Putting it on the table as a possibility is perfectly okay with me.
-
It should be pointed out that, according to TFA, the store / clerk have not disputed the events as described by Oprah. They have claimed that (paraphrasing here) "Gee, the clerk's English isn't that great."
--
Lorric, I would very much like to hear an alternate theory that logically follows from a salesclerk refusing to sell an item. Bonus points if you can make it fit the chain of events as described.
It could be clothes, they could be tired of getting the bag out, they may have had nothing but window shoppers the whole day or more... we don't know why. It could be anything.
No points for you.
A person working in a high-end establishment wouldn't risk their job over such trivialities.
If it was someone white, how would that be racism? It could happen to someone white. Ever watched the film Pretty Woman? Same thing.
Look, I'm not saying it's impossible that this is racism, it's certainly possible.
Let me try and point out what my problem here is. The only fact we have here is what happened with the bag, that's it. We don't know why.
My problem is jumping to a conclusion of racism, when the facts are so sparse. Pronouncing someone guilty of racism before they've even had a chance to open their mouth and explain themselves.
#1a. Pretty Woman was a (pretty terrible) fictional film. This is real life. As much as art is supposed to mirror life, I don't think a film from 1990 qualifies in the year 2013.
#1b. There is a pretty big difference between being dressed in an outfit that makes you look like a prostitute and an outfit that makes you look like Jane Everywoman Please-Don't-Take-Photographs-Of-Me-Esq.
#1c. We are assuming that Oprah wore civvies (as opposed to celebbies, which would be even worse). The article doesn't mention what she was wearing at all (and I don't feel like looking up something like this because I don't give a rats ass about celebrities as a general rule).
#2. We do know why, the clerk said the Oprah was too poor to afford the purse in question. That the shop and clerk have actively not disputed Oprah's version of events is an admission that that is how it happened (even if it wasn't and even if there was more to it).
In general, I agree that people are too quick to jump to conclusions and allegations of racism (among other things). This is not one of those cases.
But then, let me ask you this: Do you find it more or less probable that this was a racially motivated incident? (Feel free to ponder on this for a while)
--
This everyday racism is absolutely pervasive in our society. You will see it everywhere, if you look, but you, as a presumably white male, will never be a victim of it.
Psh. They're called scholarships, man. :P
I disagree with the notion that people won't risk their jobs over this. Most people aren't paid enough or treated well enough to give a ****.
I'm a 26 year old guy. My entire wardrobe consists of jeans and t-shirts, I have an eyebrow and labret piercing, and my hair is a random neon color with frightening regularity. I work for myself, so I can get away with this. When I was looking for a new vehicle (before I'd decided to get a motorcycle), I went around to a few local BMW dealerships, because I was entertaining the idea of getting an E46 or E90 M3 and I wanted to see if any of them had one in their certified pre-owned stocks. At all three dealerships, not a single person that worked there would give me the time of day, nevermind the fact that I way paying in full with cash. Some of these people consider themselves gatekeepers of the "brand" and they look at anyone who doesn't fit with their image like pond scum, no matter what color they happen to be. Unless you can read minds, you can't know what motivates such action for certain. Arrogance, racism, laziness...all possibilities. The difference is that I actually don't care (if they don't want my business, **** 'em) and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.
-
Yeah, unless the article got a bunch of things wrong this looks like racism. The clerk knew nothing about her (I hope), and thus any judgement she made would likely be based on Oprah's appearance--including her race. Her clothing may have been a factor if it made her look poor or middle-class*, but either way there's an excellent chance that her race influenced the clerk's thinking.
Now, I agree that people often try to make everything about race. I will usually try to find an alternative explanation. But the sheer arrogance of this speaks for itself. In particular, the clerk's condescending attitude reeks of racism.
Unless her English is just so horrible that it made proper communication impossible, but I somehow doubt that.
*Not sure because I can't watch the video without irritating people in the background, and it may have said something about that.
-
The video really doesn't offer anything you can't get in the article.
-
I just think this is another case of "putting foot in mouth," bad part is doing this to a media mogul like Oprah.
Watch kabooms ensue.
-
Articles on other news sites quote Oprah as saying “I didn’t have my eyelashes on, but I was in full Oprah Winfrey gear,”
So I think we can safely dispense with the notion that dressing-down played a role in the course of any analysis, folks.
Therefore, we are left with two alternatives why a clerk would make such a statement about affordability:
1. Physical appearance.
2. A statement by Oprah about her ability to afford it.
Given the lack of #2 as indicated in all the reports, we are left with only the first option. Which means that - on a probabilistic basis at least - Ms. Winfrey was indeed subjected to racism, unintentional/implicit/systemic/casual though it may have been.
It also doesn't hurt to point out that both Switzerland (where the incident occurred) and Italy (where the shop assistant is from) have documented recent undercurrents of casual racism toward immigrants culturally and politically, specifically toward people originating in Africa and whose appearance reflects that origin. (Not that other countries have a much better track record).
-
No points for you.
A person working in a high-end establishment wouldn't risk their job over such trivialities.
This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.
Except to a racist, race isn't a triviality. History has shown this to be true specifically in cases where it cost people their (sometimes high-paying) jobs.
1a. Yes I knew someone would pull the "it's not real" card. The question is is it believable. I think it is. And I think it does, 1990 is irrelevant in this case.
Twenty-three years is an incredible amount of time for a society to change. It is perfectly relevant to the discussion of how someone dressed like that would be treated when entering a high-class establishment as opposed to now. As I said, art tends to mirror life; and life has changed since then.
Also, I find it believable that fey people make Swedish people racist no matter what. This has a great deal of bearing on this incident.
2. We don't know why the clerk reached that conclusion.
I don't know. That's my main point. I lack the information to make such a judgement, and it disturbs me that others have done.
[...]
And this I also agree with. It's the certainty that bothers me. I acknowledge the possibility, it is people just making the assumption I have the real problem with. The conclusion jump is the issue, not the idea that this could be racially motivated. Putting it on the table as a possibility is perfectly okay with me.
As has been previously stated in this thread, the owner of the shop and the clerk in question have not disputed or explained further regarding any of this even when given the opportunity.
This isn't really jumping to conclusions is what I'm saying. There are some fairly strong indicators that this specific incident was racially motivated.
--
and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.
Huh. If words can describe how wrong this is, they are lost on me.
-
I disagree with the notion that people won't risk their jobs over this. Most people aren't paid enough or treated well enough to give a ****.
I'm a 26 year old guy. My entire wardrobe consists of jeans and t-shirts, I have an eyebrow and labret piercing, and my hair is a random neon color with frightening regularity. I work for myself, so I can get away with this. When I was looking for a new vehicle (before I'd decided to get a motorcycle), I went around to a few local BMW dealerships, because I was entertaining the idea of getting an E46 or E90 M3 and I wanted to see if any of them had one in their certified pre-owned stocks. At all three dealerships, not a single person that worked there would give me the time of day, nevermind the fact that I way paying in full with cash. Some of these people consider themselves gatekeepers of the "brand" and they look at anyone who doesn't fit with their image like pond scum, no matter what color they happen to be. Unless you can read minds, you can't know what motivates such action for certain. Arrogance, racism, laziness...all possibilities. The difference is that I actually don't care (if they don't want my business, **** 'em) and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.
That's a possibility, but it seems far more likely that racism played a role in this mess. It actually fits in pretty well with that snobby attitude you just described.
Also, a black person being offended by what appears to be racism is not a "massively overdeveloped persecution complex". Most rich people would get offended when a store clerk treats them like some poor person and refuses to let them look at something because they think they can't afford it.
Let's not blame the victim.
-
and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.
Huh. If words can describe how wrong this is, they are lost on me.
Yeah, the casual misogyny in a thread about casual racism nearly broke my irony meter, too.
-
Articles on other news sites quote Oprah as saying “I didn’t have my eyelashes on, but I was in full Oprah Winfrey gear,”
So I think we can safely dispense with the notion that dressing-down played a role in the course of any analysis, folks.
Therefore, we are left with two alternatives why a clerk would make such a statement about affordability:
1. Physical appearance.
2. A statement by Oprah about her ability to afford it.
Given the lack of #2 as indicated in all the reports, we are left with only the first option. Which means that - on a probabilistic basis at least - Ms. Winfrey was indeed subjected to racism, unintentional/implicit/systemic/casual though it may have been.
I agree.
It's a shame with something like this we can't just be laughing good-naturedly at how someone working in a shop which deals with high-end people, didn't recognise one of this planet's most recognisable faces and then didn't think they could afford the merchandise, instead of racism.
-
What I'm trying to get across is that people crying racism when something isn't racism isn't helping. Using racial slurs? Definitely racism and not acceptable. Getting bad customer service? Okay, MAYBE it's racism, but private businesses have a right to serve whoever they want. We also have the right never to go there again, and to tell our friends never to go there. But there comes a point in a campaign to eradicate an idea where the extra effort required to do so either stops getting returns or swings things in the other direction. Bigotry and hatred is never going to be purged from human nature. Bad **** happens every day, all around the world. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but going out of our way to look for it isn't the right thing to do, either. It's needlessly antagonistic, especially when you have a massive audience and a bored, sensationalist media sector to cry to.
Also, this:
Yeah, the casual misogyny in a thread about casual racism nearly broke my irony meter, too.
is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common colloquialism because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.
-
This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.
http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry
44 pages of why you're wrong. :p
-
is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common casual misogyny because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.
FTFY.
"Sandy vagina" is no different than a myriad of other so-called common colloquialisms like "that's so gay," "that's Jewish," "I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma), etc. The fact that you think that makes it OK nicely illustrates how casual, common language or behaviour can be regularly discriminatory and yet the people who use it fail to recognize that. Notice that there are few of these types of "colloquialisms" associated with being a straight white male. Ever wondered why that is?
If anything, your casually-misogynistic statement was a useful parallel to illustrate just how casual racism works. Just like you didn't intend your comment to be derogatory to women, the clerk likely didn't intend her comment to be derogatory on the basis of race. But that doesn't change the fact that both statements are.
If I up the irony and say "don't get your panties in a twist" will it drive home the point?
-
This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.
http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry
44 pages of why you're wrong. :p
Well, I read the first page, and that was all customers, not employees. So at best it's 43 pages... :p
But thanks though. These are enjoyable, I will be reading on. :)
-
Lorric, could you do us a favour? While being enjoyed by it, could you please try and think about what the vast number of incidents collected there means? Because it's relevant to this issue.
-
is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common casual misogyny because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.
FTFY.
"Sandy vagina" is no different than a myriad of other so-called common colloquialisms like "that's so gay," "that's Jewish," "I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma), etc. The fact that you think that makes it OK nicely illustrates how casual, common language or behaviour can be regularly discriminatory and yet the people who use it fail to recognize that. Notice that there are few of these types of "colloquialisms" associated with being a straight white male. Ever wondered why that is?
If anything, your casually-misogynistic statement was a useful parallel to illustrate just how casual racism works. Just like you didn't intend your comment to be derogatory to women, the clerk likely didn't intend her comment to be derogatory on the basis of race. But that doesn't change the fact that both statements are.
If I up the irony and say "don't get your panties in a twist" will it drive home the point?
Discrimination requires intent. If the clerk intended to be discriminatory based on race, then that's racist. I'm not going to argue that. But what if it was classism? People who like ostentatious, expensive things tend to look down on people they think are poor. Is classism wrong? Nationalism? No one likes Americans. Is nationalism wrong? At what point should we stop getting offended? If everything in the world offends your delicate, flowery sensibilities, you're gonna have a bad time.
-
but private businesses have a right to serve whoever they want. We also have the right never to go there again, and to tell our friends never to go there.
I am fairly certain such business practices (denial of service based on race or creed) are illegal in The United States, now.
I can't speak as to whether or not that is so in other countries, however.
Discrimination requires intent. If the clerk intended to be discriminatory based on race, then that's racist. I'm not going to argue that. But what if it was classism? People who like ostentatious, expensive things tend to look down on people they think are poor. Is classism wrong? Nationalism? No one likes Americans. Is nationalism wrong? At what point should we stop getting offended? If everything in the world offends your delicate, flowery sensibilities, you're gonna have a bad time.
You must have missed the part where MP-Ryan pointed out that she was wearing nice clothing, and stuff.
At best, you could argue that it was straight up xenophobia as opposed to racism. Which really isn't much better.
-
EDIT: Bloodeagle ninja'd me. What follows was a response to 20%
Actually, while the intentional act of discriminating requires some level of intent, discrimination does not. You also appear to be in need of some self-education on implicit, casual, or systemic discrimination (all three terms cover essentially the same thing). For example, casual racism or casual misogyny do not require intent - my last post elaborates more on that subject.
Yours is the common argument of dilution - that racism can't be that bad if classism isn't that bad (because its common), which in turn isn't that bad if discrimination on another category which is not politically charged is even more common.. It's not applicable. (Also, your use of the term nationalism in the context you've stated is denotatively incorrect and adds no weight to your argument.) As I've said in past threads on this subject, humans cognitively function by creating in-groups and out-groups. The creation of those groups heuristically in cognitive process is not harmful; action or perpetuation of [ungrounded] negative stereotypes based on them is.
Furthermore, your use of phrases like "sandy vagina" and "delicate, flowery sensibilities" shows you have a poor grasp or irony, historical use of language, lack of self-awareness in how you write, or a combination of all three.
It's not about offending people. It's about some self-awareness of how social boundaries are created and enforced through the use of everyday language and the emphasis of negative stereotypes. Was the clerk intentionally racist? Unlikely, but there's a stack of evidence for implicit racism at work, just like I have no doubt that you did not intend for your earlier comment to be misogynistic, even though it absolutely was.
-
Lorric, could you do us a favour? While being enjoyed by it, could you please try and think about what the vast number of incidents collected there means? Because it's relevant to this issue.
What do they mean to you? Yes, there are lots of judgemental people out there. I took issue here with people for being judgemental. And now I am happy.
"I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma)
I like using this. I never knew it's origination, I just picked it up. I guess I'd better stop. But I like saying it... :(
Also, I find it believable that fey people make Swedish people racist no matter what. This has a great deal of bearing on this incident.
While I do not think we have any need to proceed with the rest of the conversation anymore, this line, I have no idea what it means...
-
This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.
http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry
44 pages of why you're wrong. :p
Well, I read the first page, and that was all customers, not employees. So at best it's 43 pages... :p
But thanks though. These are enjoyable, I will be reading on. :)
Damnit, typed it wrong since I always go to Right before Working!
http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry
That there is 20+ pages of workers discriminating against a customer openly enough that someone went home and wrote up the story. Hard to believe your claim that no one would do it.
-
If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.
Even if the woman didn't serve Oprah because of her skin colour nothing she allegedly said indicates that.
-
If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.
Please explain.
-
If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.
Please explain.
I modified the post.
But basically from what the story says, Oprah went in and wasn't allowed to look at a bag.
She left feeling the reason was racism.
But what did the woman say that indicated it was a decision based on race?
Nothing from what I can tell.
So it was Oprah that internally decided it was a race-based decision when it could have been any number of reasons.
Black woman not being served by a shop DOES NOT mean without doubt that they're not serving her based on the fact she's black.
And being racist doesn't mean that you feel your race is superior either.
-
Damnit, typed it wrong since I always go to Right before Working!
http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry
That there is 20+ pages of workers discriminating against a customer openly enough that someone went home and wrote up the story. Hard to believe your claim that no one would do it.
I never made such a claim. I said someone thinking clearly, racist or not, wouldn't do it. This person, racist or not, wasn't thinking clearly. Unless the language excuse is genuine, of course.
I'll have a look at this sometime.
-
Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.
I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."
-
Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.
I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."
I had thoughts that if I was racist, I'd want her to waste her money on the bag... :)
Yeah, I'm with you on this. It could be 100% fireproof, impervious to damage, exquisitely beautiful, and like the TARDIS on the inside, and I still wouldn't think it worth that money.
-
Well, we're dealing with either racism or classism here. Neither is good. A lot has been said and done about racism, but I feel that classism isn't going anywhere. It's a reasonable assumption that a plainly dressed black woman isn't going to be upper-class, because there really is such a disparity, most of American upper class was white, last time I checked. Also, she could've lacked other "clues" to being upper-class. So, I'm going to go with classism on that one. Also, this was a rather incompetent clerk. If a customer shows up and wants something, the clerk's job is not making stupid comments, but provide the customer with that item, no unnecessary questions asked.
Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.
I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."
That's noveau riche for you. One can look classy with much cheaper products and spend the money on thing that matter instead. But some people suddenly get rich, don't know what to do with all that money and proceed to blow it all on overpriced handbags, ridiculous cars and such. If I ever become rich, I'll probably still be driving some old jalopy (possibly my father's '95 Windstar, I love that car, despite it's flaws :)). :) There's much more to a car than it's price. Same with clothing, I've seen clothes from the greatest designers that are just plain ugly.
-
I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."
I agree. Either that or a simple "The price is quite ridiculous." would have fitted nicely.
-
They don't pay $38,000 for the handbag, they pay that much for the receipt! :P
-
http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry
Read them all.
While not all the people are bad, most of them are. How on Earth do these people beat all the other people in the interview process to get the jobs in the first place?
-
Statistics. A lot of decent people get the jobs, too. They don't get posted about on noalwaysworking.com, though. Such media are, in general, are prone to giving misleading impressions, probably because those jobs are very boring to report on (and indeed, to do) when nothing is wrong.
-
Statistics. A lot of decent people get the jobs, too. They don't get posted about on noalwaysworking.com, though. Such media are, in general, are prone to giving misleading impressions, probably because those jobs are very boring to report on (and indeed, to do) when nothing is wrong.
Well yes, I've never seen anything like any of those IRL. I'm just puzzled about how any of them can beat out however many people applied for the same job at all, you're going up against dozens of people in a job interview.
-
EDIT: Bloodeagle ninja'd me. What follows was a response to 20%
Actually, while the intentional act of discriminating requires some level of intent, discrimination does not. You also appear to be in need of some self-education on implicit, casual, or systemic discrimination (all three terms cover essentially the same thing). For example, casual racism or casual misogyny do not require intent - my last post elaborates more on that subject.
Yours is the common argument of dilution - that racism can't be that bad if classism isn't that bad (because its common), which in turn isn't that bad if discrimination on another category which is not politically charged is even more common.. It's not applicable. (Also, your use of the term nationalism in the context you've stated is denotatively incorrect and adds no weight to your argument.) As I've said in past threads on this subject, humans cognitively function by creating in-groups and out-groups. The creation of those groups heuristically in cognitive process is not harmful; action or perpetuation of [ungrounded] negative stereotypes based on them is.
Furthermore, your use of phrases like "sandy vagina" and "delicate, flowery sensibilities" shows you have a poor grasp or irony, historical use of language, lack of self-awareness in how you write, or a combination of all three.
It's not about offending people. It's about some self-awareness of how social boundaries are created and enforced through the use of everyday language and the emphasis of negative stereotypes. Was the clerk intentionally racist? Unlikely, but there's a stack of evidence for implicit racism at work, just like I have no doubt that you did not intend for your earlier comment to be misogynistic, even though it absolutely was.
I won't apologize for not feeling the need to completely over-analyze every word that comes out of my mouth and every social interaction on the face of the planet. The absolutely insane emphasis on everything being as politically correct as possible is one of the factors unraveling modern society. I never said classism wasn't bad. I never said xenophobia springing from nationalism (which, by the way, absolutely applies - identifying with one's country, or an idealized view of it, strongly enough to want to "protect" it from foreign invaders is what I was talking about) wasn't bad. "Is that bad" was rhetorical. Obviously, everyone is going to have different opinions. You choosing to be offended at every single one of them is a valid opinion. Me choosing to mock you for being offended at every one of them is also valid. "Waaah, mommy, bad things are happening in the world, make them stop!"
-
Ms Winfrey entered a shop, and checked out a bag. The clerk there told her that it would be "too expensive for her". Given that the clerk didn't recognize her..
Well, for a huge majority of random people walking into that shop any given day, that's exactly what it would be (too expensive). I'd still see it possible the clerk was damn lazy + not very good at performing his profession. Who here didn't get ****ty service sometime?
-
I won't apologize for not feeling the need to completely over-analyze every word that comes out of my mouth and every social interaction on the face of the planet. The absolutely insane emphasis on everything being as politically correct as possible is one of the factors unraveling modern society.
How precisely is modern society unraveling? If anything, the increasing awareness of negative discrimination has led to significantly better social standards and standards of living across the board. 60 years ago African Americans couldn't sit in the same areas of the bus as Caucasians in certain American states. 50 years ago women were expected to be homemakers with no opinions on anything else. 20 years ago, large majorities did not favour extending anti-discrimination provisions to non-heterosexuals. 10 years ago, less than half of people in most advanced democracies supported equal treatment of homosexual couples. The "unraveling modern society" narrative is a popular one in certain circles, but it has no more validity today than in did when it was used nearly 4000 years ago (yes, even the ancient Greeks had the "kids these days!" phenomenon).
I never said classism wasn't bad. I never said xenophobia springing from nationalism (which, by the way, absolutely applies - identifying with one's country, or an idealized view of it, strongly enough to want to "protect" it from foreign invaders is what I was talking about) wasn't bad. "Is that bad" was rhetorical. Obviously, everyone is going to have different opinions.
You used nationalism as if the term shares the same terminator as words like racism and misogynism. It does not. Nationalism is [irrational] pride and identification with one's countrynation [thanks Dragon] of origin or residence, a similar in-group vs out-group heuristic, but does not share the same negative defining factors as racism and misogynism. Racism and misogyny define based on negative attributes of the outgroup; nationalism typically invokes positive attributes of the in-group.
You choosing to be offended at every single one of them is a valid opinion. Me choosing to mock you for being offended at every one of them is also valid. "Waaah, mommy, bad things are happening in the world, make them stop!"
Oh wow. Actually, I don't so much find your attitude offensive as ignorant and sad. To be offended I'd have to be convinced your opinion is both substantiated and valid, when it is neither.
-
You used nationalism as if the term shares the same terminator as words like racism and misogynism. It does not. Nationalism is [irrational] pride and identification with one's country of origin or residence, a similar in-group vs out-group heuristic, but does not share the same negative defining factors as racism and misogynism. Racism and misogyny define based on negative attributes of the outgroup; nationalism typically invokes positive attributes of the in-group.
Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case. And it does usually deride other nations, especially immediate neighbors. While nationalism has many shades and versions, it's just as bad as racism and misogynism.
-
Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case.
You are, of course, correct. In my haste to respond I used country, but the proper definition does deal with nations.
And it does usually deride other nations, especially immediate neighbors. While nationalism has many shades and versions, it's just as bad as racism and misogynism.
That's not a necessary part of nationalism. As a force of change, nationalism has effected positive changes in many places [without derision of neighboring nations], but has also be used as a force to generate conflict. The most common example is the Balkan nations in the early 1900s.
The modern United States has a strongly nationalist element to its society, but its usually defined by what it means to be an American, versus what it means to be something else (although this line does get blurry). Canadians have a reasonably strong nationalist sentiment as well, as do the residents of a number of other nations around the globe. In modern democracies, this is typically defined by what it means to be a member of that nation (e.g. the qualities that nation possesses) versus negative stereotypes of their neighbours.
Nationalist sentiment can be a source of violence and conflict, but violence and conflict are not necessary components of the definition of nationalism, which is an important point.
/tangent.
-
Note that violence and conflict isn't in the definition of racism or sexism, either (that's not to say they're good for anything, of course). For centuries, most women were more or less fine with sexism. Feminism is a recent invention, and a relatively non-violent one (that's not to say there weren't any incidents). Also, many homeowners in the American South treated their slaves pretty well. It might not have been fair, but it wasn't violent, either. Conflict arises when somebody has the guts to point out something is wrong, violence often follows this. It's not in the definition of any kind of discrimination.
Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case.
You are, of course, correct. In my haste to respond I used country, but the proper definition does deal with nations.
Don't worry, many people, including many nationalists, make the same mistake. :) Our nations have the comfort of their own country, it's easy to make that mistake. A Chechen (for example), on the other hand, would be quick to point out the difference.
-
Slight bump...
So now the shopkeeper's side of the story is told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389798/Oprah-Winfrey-branded-liar-Swiss-sales-assistant-racist-handbag-row.html):
Now the saleslady has hit back, stating: 'I wasn't sure what I should present to her when she came in on the afternoon of Saturday July 20 so I showed her some bags from the Jennifer Aniston collection. I explained to her the bags came in different sizes and materials, like I always do. She looked at a frame behind me. Far above there was the 35,000 Swiss franc crocodile leather bag. I simply told her that it was like the one I held in my hand, only much more expensive, and that I could show her similar bags. It is absolutely not true that I declined to show her the bag on racist grounds. I even asked her if she wanted to look at the bag.
'She looked around the store again but didn't say anything else. Then she went with her companion to the lower floor. My colleague saw them to the door. They were not even in the store for five minutes.'
She emphatically denied ever saying to Winfrey: 'You don't want to see this bag. It is too expensive. You cannot afford it.'
And very quickly after that story broke, Oprah suddenly wants the story to go away (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391313/Oprah-Winfrey-says-regrets-mentioning-handbag-racism-incident-Zurich.html):
Oprah Winfrey says she is 'sorry' a media frenzy emerged after saying she experienced racism during a trip to Switzerland.
'I think that incident in Switzerland was just an incident in Switzerland. I'm really sorry that it got blown up. I purposefully did not mention the name of the store. I'm sorry that I said it was Switzerland,' Winfrey said. 'I was just referencing it as an example of being in a place where people don't expect that you would be able to be there.'
The shopkeeper's perspective now throws the story into a new light. It makes it sound like Oprah was manufacturing an instance of racism in order to get some attention and publicity.
-
waitwaitwaitwait... So what you're saying is, is that Lorric was... probably... right?
I don't even anymore.
(all in good humor, Lorric :)
-
I was actually going to end my post with "So Lorric was right" but didn't want to set off a flame war. But yes, Lorric, with his cautious "let's not jump to conclusions" approach, was right. :nod:
(And to those forumites who are going to reflexively leap to defend themselves, citing the previously published story, you were judging based on incomplete information. Racism is easy to condemn if you first assume racism.)
-
Personally I find the whole situation hilarious. It's funny seeing egos of fame get deflated.
-
:)
-
So wait, the shop assistant posts her story and we all instantly believe it?
-
But yes, Lorric, with his cautious "let's not jump to conclusions" approach, was right.
Because someone, with every possible reason to lie, says so.
I have bridge. It's in Brooklyn. Can I interest you in it?
-
So wait, the shop assistant posts her story and we all instantly believe it?
Apparently, when Oprah posted her story, y'all instantly believed it.
-
She has very little reason to lie. I'm sure she's encountered enough racism in her life to not need to manufacture a story.
Quite apart from that, what kind of ****ty salesperson deliberately shows a customer cheaper bags than the one they were interested in?
-
Apparently, when Oprah posted her story, y'all instantly believed it.
Oprah doesn't make stuff up on her own. While her show eagerly gulps down psuedoscience and falsehood, she's never been the source, only an enabler.
She also has very little reason to create a controversy here. She's filthy rich and getting richer, master of media empire, etc. Lying can't help her reach a wider audience or otherwise enhance her career; it can only hurt her.
-
She has plenty of reason to lie. She makes money from media and publicity. And wouldn't you agree that no matter how much money or publicity a person has, they always want more?
And in turn, there are plenty of reasons to believe the salesperson:
The saleslady went on: 'This is not true. This is absurd. I would never say something like that to a customer. Really never. Good manners and politeness are the Alpha and the Omega in this business.
'I don't know why she is making these accusations. She is so powerful and I am just a shop girl. I didn't hurt anyone. I don't know why someone as great as her must cannibalize me on TV. If it had all taken place as she claimed, why has she not complained the next day at the wedding of Tina Turner with Trudie Goetz, my boss? She was there also at the Turner wedding as a guest. I don't understand it.'
'We work really hard to greet all the people who come into the store with the same level of respect and treat them all equally. If someone asks me whether he or she can see an article, I always present these. Because that person is a potential buyer. And my job is to sell it. I'm glad if I can sell an article. It is a reward for me, if I can sell a nice piece. This means that I'm good at my job.'
Also, the best lies have an element of truth. Rather than make up her story out of whole cloth, Oprah probably took a true event and then augmented it with a racist statement.
And according to the salesperson, she didn't show Oprah cheaper bags than the ones she wanted. Read the article: she offered to show Oprah the more expensive bags, but Oprah left the room.
-
Also, the best lies have an element of truth.
For my own reasons, that go beyond this thread, I would like everyone to fix this statement firmly in their minds please.
-
Stuff
Oprah Winfrey isn't exactly some has been teen starlet desperately flailing about public in order to get some air time on TMZ. Oprah Winfrey has an empire, there isn't much need for fabricating some stunt to get press. Besides "Why didn't she cause a scene at her friend's wedding over it" is hardly a valid argument.
-
She makes money from media and publicity.
Oprah Winfrey owns a television network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey_Network_%28U.S._TV_channel%29).
Let me repeat that.
She owns a television network.
And you think the best way she has to create publicity is to talk about a racist incident in a foreign country. You are saying that Rupert Murdoch would be reduced to acting like Kardashian if he wanted to stir up some publicity. That's dumb, Goob. There's no nicer, politer way to put it. Millions of people watch her talk show, millions more her network, a few million probably pick up her magazine. She's got an independent voice like very few people in the world do. If Oprah wants to create publicity, she's just got to pick up a phone and put herself on the cover of that magazine in my supermarket checkout aisle again, wearing a ridiculous afro.
In the meantime, your quotation instead illustrates the opposite, that the girl has every reason to lie because she has no other resource at her disposal to defend herself with save an ability to tell a story.
-
I was actually going to end my post with "So Lorric was right" but didn't want to set off a flame war. But yes, Lorric, with his cautious "let's not jump to conclusions" approach, was right. :nod:
(And to those forumites who are going to reflexively leap to defend themselves, citing the previously published story, you were judging based on incomplete information. Racism is easy to condemn if you first assume racism.)
Goober, I actually think you got this right with the bolded part, rather than lies. A misunderstanding, confirmation bias kicking in for Oprah, and there you go. No lies.
-
yall keep saying she doesn't need publicity, it would only hurt her, etc... but look at it. it worked. not saying that's definitely the reason behind it, **** if i know, but it IS the result. how many of you gave the slightest **** about what oprah was up to before this came out? yeah she has a TV network. raise your hand if you've watched it. or even GET it. how many times has the name Oprah Winfrey even crossed your mind in the past, i don't know, six months? now all KINDS of people are crying "oh how horrible this celebrity encountered a 'racist' salesperson!"
-
how many times has the name Oprah Winfrey even crossed your mind in the past, i don't know, six months?
Every time I buy groceries, as I already indicated.
-
I'm just going to leave this here (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/butler-review-civil-rights-saga-heats-when-it-leaves-white-house-109316)
Even if she doesn't need the publicity for her movie, it and the issues of racism it discusses probably have been on her mind a lot while she's been promoting it. Doesn't mean the shop girls wasn't racist, but it does seem to suggest Oprah might have been primed for confirmation bias to kick in. Combine that with the almost certain language issues between the two of them and it seems very possible that this was a pure misunderstanding.
-
I'm just going to leave this here (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/butler-review-civil-rights-saga-heats-when-it-leaves-white-house-109316)
Even if she doesn't need the publicity for her movie, it and the issues of racism it discusses probably have been on her mind a lot while she's been promoting it. Doesn't mean the shop girls wasn't racist, but it does seem to suggest Oprah might have been primed for confirmation bias to kick in. Combine that with the almost certain language issues between the two of them and it seems very possible that this was a pure misunderstanding.
Most interesting... I had no idea about that.
-
I just find it amusing that the same people who kept insisting "Keep an open mind, it might not be racism", have suddenly leapt wholeheartedly onto the "She's a publicity seeking *****" bandwagon.
What I find especially funny is they are doing that based on a story from the Daily Mail!
-
Annnd... that's exactly why I've been avoiding this thread like the plague. :D
-
What I find especially funny is they are doing that based on a story from the Daily Mail!
The Mail isn't the source. This is:
http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/international/ich-kann-seit-tagen-nicht-mehr-schlafen-id2402940.html
-
Blick isn't as disreputable a source as the Daily Fail, but still not exactly trustworthy.
-
It does remind me of a time where Sharon and I went to London to buy some audio equipment and we sat down for 5 minutes on the steps of a shop only to get an employee come out and tell us to move. My Solution was to go into the shop and wave 500 pounds in the managers face, telling her she wouldn't see a penny of it now because of the behaviour of her staff.
Last I saw of the employee they were going into the Managers office :D
-
Blick isn't as disreputable a source as the Daily Fail, but still not exactly trustworthy.
what does 'trustworthy' even mean here, are you saying they fabricated statements from this woman?
-
Blick isn't as disreputable a source as the Daily Fail, but still not exactly trustworthy.
what does 'trustworthy' even mean here, are you saying they fabricated statements from this woman?
Not exactly. Right now, we can't tell which version of the story is the truth, and as a tabloid, they have an interest in embellishing the truth in order to get the most drama out of the story.
In the interview, the woman in question describes it all as a nightmare she just wants to get away from, and says she doesn't know how this has all happened, that it was all a misunderstanding.
I am somewhat inclined to believe her when she says this.
That does not, however, invalidate the discussion we had over systemic and entrenched classism and racism.
-
When it comes to the Daily Mail, they do flat out invent stuff. That's why I always laugh when they are quoted as a new source.
-
Yeah, unless the article got a bunch of things wrong this looks like racism.
Man I'm glad I put that there.
But this is from a tabloid...
I know nothing. :nervous:
-
Yeah, unless the article got a bunch of things wrong this looks like racism.
Man I'm glad I put that there.
But this is from a tabloid...
I know nothing. :nervous:
No reason to consider anything in the original article incorrect.
This has clearly boiled down from 'She said, she didn't say anything -- which is kind of strange' to 'She said, she said nuh uh'.
We'll probably never know for certain what happened. I for one, am going with my original assumption until actual evidence is presented.