[thatoneuser]

It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this. The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc.

Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He didn't come out shooting a gun, he came out and got jumped. The school said it was racial profiling - even though no one denied it was theft. What side of the story is missing here? More personal testimony that the intervention was racially based? There's just nothing more to the story that could make this balance out.

I think your reluctance to take the facts at face value and instead say "well what if this really was racist" is exactly the indoctrination that schools like this have fostered. It's like back in the day when people did this kind of crap to ruin black businesses and thinking "well what if we don't know the full story behind their behavior?" Sure maybe there was a valid justification for the hateful behavior, but apply the logical razor.

Racism seemed to be getting a lot better about 10 years ago and since then it seems to have taken a turn. Now it's seemingly in vogue to hate on whites. Don't doubt that there are people out there who think that's a good thing, but consider that the next time the pendulum swings it won't still be the same race being targeted. Do we want to have another Jim Crow era in 2030 where we collectively hate blacks like is so popular to do to whites now?

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20191889.

[zuminator]

I don't know how you're quoting me at saying "well what if this really was racist?" My question was why did the students and faculty think it was racist to the point of going forward with a disastrous trial?

About your last paragraph, I feel like you're just illustrating my larger point. Is it really en vogue to "hate on whites" or is the media and internet pushing that narrative because divisiveness brings page views? Btw, Jim Crow wasn't just about hating on black people, it was about a legal and societal framework where blacks were kept in subservience, poverty, disenfranchisement and constant fear for their lives. People didn't need to hate blacks so much, as long as they stayed in their place. Things were orders of magnitude worse than people on Twitter jawboning about reparations and white privilege.

[thatoneuser]

You must be misunderstanding something here. This isn't "people on Twitter jawboning" - this is about an institution playing vigilante by deliberately and wrongly accusing a store owner of racism when all he did was try to protect his property. This is real life people losing their jobs and money because they dare to try and stop someone from stealing from them. Not even just the store owner but his employees. Quoting from yourself, this is about "keeping them in subservience" and making sure they "stay in their place".

If you really don't see that and want to continue with the racist apologia then by all means, it's a free country.

[yardie]

Well that went off the rails real fast. Might want to wall back that last paragraph. No one is hating on whites. Nazis, on the other hand, can go fuck themselves.

[Fins]

Would the bakery owners be the "literal nazis" in this case?

[thatoneuser]

Let me guess, everyone suffers from racism except white people. And white people are the only ones who can be racist.

I've learned a lot about HN today.

[dang]

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html