Is Breitbart doomed?
-
Signs that Breitbart’s editors had become nervous with their public status as “alt-right” champions began appearing as far back as November, when one of the site’s most virulent commentators left, saying the sitehad become “more controlled.” But the pace of cosmetic change quickened after progressive activists began destroying the site’s business model by urging advertisers to abandon it.
The Washington Post outlines four such changes: the removal of Breitbart staffers Milo Yiannopoulos and Katie McHugh, who departed amid media firestorms over their commentary; the elimination of the website’s regular spotlight on purported instances of “black crime”; and the delay of a planned expansion to France and Germany.
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/08/is-breitbart-doomed_partner/
-
I hope they are shut down. After the disgusting thing they did to Shirley Sherrod in 2010, they need to be shut down for good. They even admitted wrongdoing in that situation after the settlement.
-
I hope they are shut down. After the disgusting thing they did to Shirley Sherrod in 2010, they need to be shut down for good. They even admitted wrongdoing in that situation after the settlement.
You left out that Shirley Sherrod was not fired, she voluntarily resigned. And this is going back 7 years. Is there nothing more current that was bad?
-
I hope they are shut down. After the disgusting thing they did to Shirley Sherrod in 2010, they need to be shut down for good. They even admitted wrongdoing in that situation after the settlement.
Would you care as much if it was a white man, rather than a black woman?
-
I hope they are shut down. After the disgusting thing they did to Shirley Sherrod in 2010, they need to be shut down for good. They even admitted wrongdoing in that situation after the settlement.
Would you care as much if it was a white man, rather than a black woman?
The black woman had to work harder.
-
How so?
-
Breitbart hasn't been the same after they lost their provocateur/pedophile sympathizer.
-
How so?
Here is an example.
I'm certain these girls could have been doing something more productive. Instead they were fighting with a bunch of white people to wear their hair a certain way. I would argue that girls with hair like this take much better care of their than the average person. They spend 6-8 hours sitting in a hair salon getting and its rather expensive. It's great that they won but awful that they had to fight to begin with.
-
There's not enough info in the articles I can find over the facts of the story.
So you equate wearing weaves or not, as oppression. Nobody said you had to wear a weave.
The dress code is the dress code. They violated the dress code, then got butt hurt over the fact that they got punished for it.
In my high school, guys could not wear short but girls could. The same goes with sleeveless tops. Guys are oppressed.
-
Ok, the entire thing is that the school does not allow weaves and extensions.
It has nothing to do with black hair styles, unless black hair styles require weaves and extensions.
The black girls who got in trouble, knowingly violated the rules.
It would only be racist if the rule allowed everyone but blacks to wear weaves/extensions.
-
Ok, the entire thing is that the school does not allow weaves and extensions.
It has nothing to do with black hair styles, unless black hair styles require weaves and extensions.
The black girls who got in trouble, knowingly violated the rules.
It would only be racist if the rule allowed everyone but blacks to wear weaves/extensions.
It's a cultural thing. That hair style is just more common among black girls so the policy disproportionately affects them. I guarantee that if a bunch of white men turned this hair style into a popular thing for them it would not be an issue.
-
How so?
Here is an example.
I'm certain these girls could have been doing something more productive. Instead they were fighting with a bunch of white people to wear their hair a certain way. I would argue that girls with hair like this take much better care of their than the average person. They spend 6-8 hours sitting in a hair salon getting and its rather expensive. It's great that they won but awful that they had to fight to begin with.
Meanwhile, schools with too many white people lose funding in California.
Are you seriously suggesting some row over hair styles = oppression?
-
even if breitbart were to go under what it stands for will not go away. the counter culture against liberal/SJW lunacy is not going anywhere and is in fact growing stronger everyday.
-
How so?
Here is an example.
I'm certain these girls could have been doing something more productive. Instead they were fighting with a bunch of white people to wear their hair a certain way. I would argue that girls with hair like this take much better care of their than the average person. They spend 6-8 hours sitting in a hair salon getting and its rather expensive. It's great that they won but awful that they had to fight to begin with.
Meanwhile, schools with too many white people lose funding in California.
Are you seriously suggesting some row over hair styles = oppression?
That's horrible. The public school district I went to was actually sued over something similar and the case went to the Supreme Court in the 90's. The school district won and they are allowed to balance the schools based on race. In general, this allows a minority to go to any school they want while most white kids must attend the school in their district (or to a school with more minorities which a generally worse schools).
-
Ok, the entire thing is that the school does not allow weaves and extensions.
It has nothing to do with black hair styles, unless black hair styles require weaves and extensions.
The black girls who got in trouble, knowingly violated the rules.
It would only be racist if the rule allowed everyone but blacks to wear weaves/extensions.
It's a cultural thing. That hair style is just more common among black girls so the policy disproportionately affects them. I guarantee that if a bunch of white men turned this hair style into a popular thing for them it would not be an issue.
Braided hair is not banned under the dress code and not why the girls got in trouble.
Girls of every race use extensions and weaves. The rule doesn't only ban black girls from it.
-
There's not enough info in the articles I can find over the facts of the story.
So you equate wearing weaves or not, as oppression. Nobody said you had to wear a weave.
The dress code is the dress code. They violated the dress code, then got butt hurt over the fact that they got punished for it.
In my high school, guys could not wear short but girls could. The same goes with sleeveless tops. Guys are oppressed.
In my high school.. guys could not wear shorts.. but I did anyway.. and NOBODY ever dared to write me up for it because I was one of the top 3 students in the school of 2500 students. Now, give me my thumbs down Sutieday! I'm waiting for it!
A funny thing though.. there was no rule against culottes, which are shorts that go below the knee… so a lot of guys were wearing culottes meant for girls as a protest.
Eventually, they came up with a crazy rule where you could wear shorts, IF your GPA was high enough.
