Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem rather defensive about his sexuality being discussed. Perhaps if he had not filled the internet with photos of himself posing in very feminine ways nobody would be discussing it ... just exactly how if this girl hadn’t filmed herself using the n-word we wouldn’t be discussing that, either.
Are you understanding now how this whole thing works?
I've seen the photos of him hanging out with a bunch of white girls, and I've seen his feminine demeanor in some of those photos. I don't think he's gay though. I think he had surrounded himself with all the cutest girls in his school and he got friend zoned by the lot of them, and it's made him bitter. They thought of him as one of the girls. Being biracial meant he had the racism excuse to fall back on, and that weapon to use to get his revenge.
The people who run the institutions that gave him this kind of power are the scum. The the pitchfork-wielders at the NYT and the spineless cowards at UT should be ashamed of themselves.
Give me a break, the NYT story was from 2 days ago and this happened back in June, UT made their decision months ago the girl is already attending another school. The local news papers carried this and it was all over social media for months so how exactly did the NYT "Help the Vindictive Teen" as claimed in the thread from their Libertarian source called Reason, did you actually read the NYT story or are you just parroting the news source. They story does not "lionize" the teen they are just reporting the facts surrounding the story 5 months after the fact. Typical where a news source will quote another story rather than posting the original story and let people draw their own conclusion rather than have a second source translate with their spin.
Give me a break, the NYT story was from 2 days ago and this happened back in June, UT made their decision months ago the girl is already attending another school. The local news papers carried this and it was all over social media for months so how exactly did the NYT "Help the Vindictive Teen" as claimed in the thread from their Libertarian source called Reason, did you actually read the NYT story or are you just parroting the news source. They story does not "lionize" the teen they are just reporting the facts surrounding the story 5 months after the fact. Typical where a news source will quote another story rather than posting the original story and let people draw their own conclusion rather than have a second source translate with their spin.
The New York Times is seeking to give validation to the vindictive boy. Look at the title of their article:
"A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning."
The media supports this kind of thing, at least when it goes in a certain direction. After all, the same NYT that is lauding this little monster also hired an open racist (Sarah Jeong) for their editorial board.
he had surrounded himself with all the cutest girls in his school and he got friend zoned by the lot of them, and it's made him bitter. They thought of him as one of the girls. Being biracial meant he had the racism excuse to fall back on, and that weapon to use to get his revenge.
Had a room mate that did that. Two women used him to cry on every time a bad boy treated them.... [drumroll] BADLY and got they used as a one nighter. A couple of times I had to leave the room because rolling my eyes was giving me a headache.
Was never a lady's man but I do have enough of an ego to avoid being used like that.
Simply an awful person and as I said. Hopefully the internet will follow him in four years.
The New York Times is seeking to give validation to the vindictive boy. Look at the title of their article:
"A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning."
The media supports this kind of thing, at least when it goes in a certain direction. After all, the same NYT that is lauding this little monster also hired an open racist (Sarah Jeong) for their editorial board.
Wondering where your thread on this story was in June-December before the New York Times brought it to light by reporting on it.
As I said earlier, I find the story disturbing but do not blame the NYT for reporting it.
so, Snapchat is supposed to delete your stuff right away, this is what is told happens. but if someone captures that Snapchat that you deleted, it is never deleted because now the other person can save it forever and send it to whomever they want.
I always say, never put anything into writing or internet because you may regret it.
The New York Times is seeking to give validation to the vindictive boy. Look at the title of their article:
"A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning."
The media supports this kind of thing, at least when it goes in a certain direction. After all, the same NYT that is lauding this little monster also hired an open racist (Sarah Jeong) for their editorial board.
Did you read the article or just the title. Once again this is 2 days ago, how did the article help destroy the girl for something that happened back in June. The boy was wrong for his actions and I disagree with the school but if you actually read through the details of the article there were a number of incidents at both the High School and UT leading up to this.
Did you read the article or just the title. Once again this is 2 days ago, how did the article help destroy the girl for something that happened back in June. The boy was wrong for his actions and I disagree with the school but if you actually read through the details of the article there were a number of incidents at both the High School and UT leading up to this.
I read the article. Here is a pertinent part of it:
Quote:
"A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning." That's the title of the Times's article on the subject, published the day after Christmas. Reporter Dan Levin tries to add considerable context by detailing a history of alleged unpleasantness at Heritage High School, which Groves and Galligan attended. It sits in a wealthy, predominantly white county where "slave auctions were once held on the courthouse grounds."
"In interviews, current and former students of color described an environment rife with racial insensitivity, including casual uses of slurs," notes Levin. "A report commissioned last year by the school district documented a pattern of school leaders ignoring the widespread use of racial slurs by both students and teachers, fostering a 'growing sense of despair' among students of color, some of whom faced disproportionate disciplinary measures compared with white students."
I tend to take any complaint of racial injustice with a healthy helping of salt, thanks to all the exaggerations and outright hoaxes there have been. But let's take this at face value. Galligan attended a school in a county where there used to be slave auctions (how this is relevant, I have no idea) and that racial slurs are widespread. OK, sure, that would be quite annoying. So maybe Galligan was massively aggrieved. But nowhere in the article does it say that Groves, specifically, said or did anything against him, specifically. In fact, it is not even stated whether the two of them were acquainted or not. So how does his free-floating irritation against a climate of name-calling justify his specifically targeted attack against her?
Oh, and I saw nothing in the article about any incidents at the University of Tennessee. I hope that Groves sues them, and I hope she makes them feel some of the pain they inflicted on her.
I read the article. Here is a pertinent part of it:
I tend to take any complaint of racial injustice with a healthy helping of salt, thanks to all the exaggerations and outright hoaxes there have been. But let's take this at face value. Galligan attended a school in a county where there used to be slave auctions (how this is relevant, I have no idea) and that racial slurs are widespread. OK, sure, that would be quite annoying. So maybe Galligan was massively aggrieved. But nowhere in the article does it say that Groves, specifically, said or did anything against him, specifically. In fact, it is not even stated whether the two of them were acquainted or not. So how does his free-floating irritation against a climate of name-calling justify his specifically targeted attack against her?
Oh, and I saw nothing in the article about any incidents at the University of Tennessee. I hope that Groves sues them, and I hope she makes them feel some of the pain they inflicted on her.
Why would she sue them when they have her on video being a racist? They don't want racists at their school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
