Who determines what's offensive? Coal miners at a pub, or offensive blackface?

[Ahlevah]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:

Afew weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at a downtown Phoenix restaurant. I walked around to view the photographs on the wall.Then a photograph caught my attention.

Friends said, “It’s coal miners at a pub after work.” It was a photograph of coal miners with blackened faces. I asked a Latinx and white woman for their opinion. They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work. Then they stepped back, frowned and said it’s men in blackface.

I asked the waitress to speak with a manager. Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner. I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before.

Yet, the photograph remained on the wall. He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me. While leaving, I asked him had he spoke with the other owners. He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said it's coal miners after work.

Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface

And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

 

[Captain Adverse]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

Since I believe offense is taken not given, then IMO it must be that each individual choses what to take offense to.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's more offensive to depict Adam and Eve with belly buttons. Photographs of coal miners having a drink after work is not offensive.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since I believe offense is taken not given, then IMO it must be that each individual choses what to take offense to.

One certainly has a right to feel offended, yet that does not impart a right to demand redress.

 

[Captain Adverse]

One certainly has a right to feel offended, yet that does not impart a right to demand redress.

Actually, people have a right to react (non-violently) as they see fit; choosing to ignore, confront, demand, whatever.

That does not mean they are entitled to satisfaction, apologies, concessions, or anything else.

 

[bongsaway]

The people who are offended are the people looking for a reason to be offended. After looking the picture over I thought it was coal miners.

 

[Bullseye]

Since I believe offense is taken not given, then IMO it must be that each individual choses what to take offense to.

I agree, he has a right to be offended and never patronize that bar again. I have the right to think he's a dick and make weekly reservations at the pub.

ETA: My maternal grandfather was a coal miner in Scotland and had several pictures similar to this one.

 

[trouble13]

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Manc Skipper]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

Is there a historical connection between the Welsh coalfields and Phoenix Az? It seems a strange place for such a pic to be. Apart from that I see nothing wrong with a picture of coal miners (covered in coal dust, not soot) having a pint or two on their way home, while their wives fill the tin bath in front of the fire. That's how things were back then.

 

[Virgil Jones]

A few months back we had the Laura Ingalls Wilder controversy because she described a minstrel show in one of her books. Then I watched a movie starring Burt Lancaster that had a minstrel show in it.

I am not offended by either, let alone coal miners. People really need to lighten up, and I don't mean coal miners.

 

[Deuce]

"People are so easily offended these days," says a demographic that flipped their **** about two dudes they never met signing a legal contract

 

[Virgil Jones]

"People are so easily offended these days," says a demographic that flipped their **** about two dudes they never met signing a legal contract

Two queers getting married perhaps? Glad to know you have your thumb on what is important in this world.

 

[Ahlevah]

Is there a historical connection between the Welsh coalfields and Phoenix Az? Apart from that I see nothing wrong with a picture of coal miners (covered in coal dust, not soot) having a pint or two on their way home, while their wives fill the tin bath in front of the fire. That's how things were back then.

I don't think so. It's fairly common for restaurants in this country to decorate their establishments with all sorts of "stuff." In this instance, I don't think it really matters. If a photo like that makes people think, wherever it is, then it's worthwhile as something other than a decoration or prop. And who knows? Maybe keeping the curtain off of the idea that some working-class whites had little in the way of "white privilege," other than working long hours for peanuts when they weren't dying of black lung disease or in industrial accidents, is what some people find offensive. Rephrased a different way, the lives of some whites could be "nasty, brutish, and short," i.e. not much better than that of a slave, and that sort of shoots the button off of "white privilege" as a universal affliction of whites. If you don't believe me, try putting this photo on a t-shirt and wearing it to, say, the student union at U.C. Berkeley. It wouldn't take long to generate a reaction.

 

[uptower]

I suppose a general consensus has to be reached that's broadly accepted by everyone. We all agree you can't drop an F-bomb in church after all.

But on the other hand we cannot dismiss anyone immediately for being offended at something we never expected to be offensive, or that the offended parties were too weak and disadvantaged to bring up before. At least hear them out, start the conversation, make some assessment and eventually everyone reaches a tentative agreement.

I get the feeling what the Tucker Carlsons of the world would like to make all offense 'subjective' (rather like the truth in their eyes) so they can therefore claim that offensive behavior or language is just an illusion on the victim's part and they can go back to using the N-word anytime they please.

 

[Virgil Jones]

I suppose a general consensus has to be reached that's broadly accepted by everyone. We all agree you can't drop an F-bomb in church after all.

But on the other hand we cannot dismiss anyone immediately for being offended at something we never expected to be offensive, or that the offended parties were too weak and disadvantaged to bring up before. At least hear them out, start the conversation, make some assessment and eventually everyone reaches a tentative agreement.

I get the feeling what the Tucker Carlsons of the world would like to make all offense 'subjective' (rather like the truth in their eyes) so they can therefore claim that offensive behavior or language is just an illusion on the victim's part and they can go back to using the N-word anytime they please.

Yet the left uses the slur known as the R word to murderous intent?

 

[Mr Person]

The trouble with getting outraged about alleged silly outrage is that you're most likely doing the thing you're complaining about.

The second trouble is that this technique is used to paper over actual instances of potential racism.


Anyway, the OPs link says the author was in the Air Force at the bottom of the article. Does our American reverence for the service get excluded if the veteran happens to claim about a certain thing?





(I'm not trying to disrespect veterans. But I do think we can go a bit overboard, also with reverence for law enforcement.........necessary Trump reference: except not if they are looking at Team Trump)

 

[Virgil Jones]

I don't think so. It's fairly common for restaurants in this country to decorate their establishments with all sorts of "stuff." In this instance, I don't think it really matters. If a photo like that makes people think, wherever it is, then it's worthwhile as something other than a decoration or prop. And who knows? Maybe keeping the curtain off of the idea that some working-class whites had little in the way of "white privilege," other than working long hours for peanuts when they weren't dying of black lung disease or in industrial accidents, is what some people find offensive. Rephrased a different way, the lives of some whites could be "nasty, brutish, and short," i.e. not much better than that of a slave, and that sort of shoots the button off of "white privilege" as a universal affliction of whites. If you don't believe me, try putting this photo on a t-shirt and wearing it to, say, the student union at U.C. Berkeley. It wouldn't take long to generate a reaction.

Wait, did you just try to explain that it okay for a restaurant to have a picture of coal miners based on the idiotic racism of the left calling them "blackface"

 

[Master Debator]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

Ummm..... we each decide what is offensive for ourselves. That's how subjective feelings work....

 

[OldFatGuy]

I'm the one who determines what's offensive? Anyone I can't call a #($-%_^ is offensive.

 

[uptower]

Yet the left uses the slur known as the R word to murderous intent?

That's a fair point. I don't think any culturally offensive term should be thrown about or used to paint with a broad brush.

 

[uptower]

Anyway, the OPs link says the author was in the Air Force at the bottom of the article. Does our American reverence for the service get excluded if the veteran happens to claim about a certain thing?

(I'm not trying to disrespect veterans. But I do think we can go a bit overboard, also with reverence for law enforcement.........necessary Trump reference: except not if they are looking at Team Trump)

Well you see there's a special dispensation for being in the military, another gold star for being a vet and a triple amputee vet can say anything they damn well please. This is because we live in Robert Heinlein's future apparently.

We should continue to respect veterans, but they don't get last word on every topic because of it. Too often their opinions (or more often opinions attributed to them by some third party) are trucked out to simply shut an argument down.

 

[Ahlevah]

I suppose a general consensus has to be reached that's broadly accepted by everyone. We all agree you can't drop an F-bomb in church after all.But on the other hand we cannot dismiss anyone immediately for being offended at something we never expected to be offensive, or that the offended parties were too weak and disadvantaged to bring up before. At least hear them out, start the conversation, make some assessment and eventually everyone reaches a tentative agreement.I get the feeling what the Tucker Carlsons of the world would like to make all offense 'subjective' (rather like the truth in their eyes) so they can therefore claim that offensive behavior or language is just an illusion on the victim's part and they can go back to using the N-word anytime they please.

Okay, after Tucker's discussion, I decided to look into this more. I didn't immediately dismiss the author of the editorial as a loon. I read it and then came to the conclusion he's a loon. Somehow I made it through his entire rant, including the parts about Birth of a Nation and that he doesn't see black faces when he goes to a museum. But the cork that sealed the deal for me came when he said he felt threatened by the picture. :doh I'm currently pondering this question: Would he trade his life as a black essayist and poet in 21st Century America for that of a white coal miner in early-20th Century Wales? That should be a no-brainer.

 

[marke]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

A Black statesman responded to Tucker Carlson that blacks who are offended by the picture of coal miners are unreasonable and out of line.

 

[Ahlevah]

A Black statesman responded to Tucker Carlson that blacks who are offended by the picture of coal miners are unreasonable and out of line.

I'll bet Thomas never sees his own shadow, even under a blistering Phoenix sun.

 

[Deuce]

Two queers getting married perhaps? Glad to know you have your thumb on what is important in this world.

Yeah. For some bizarre reason, you people were so offended that two dudes you've never met would sign a legal contract that you had to march and protest and demand it be against the law.

My grandparents' generation got offended if a black dude drank from the same fountain they did.

I cannot comprehend being offended by such absurdities.