Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boards platform for radical opinions, a future consideration?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    In the interest of this discussion, I've restored the thread which brought this topic about.
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055523240
    I undeleted all of the posts which were deleted during the course of the thread too.
    The thread is closed, so it's read only.

    The first page alone should paint a clear picture as to why I ended up deleting it in the first place.


  • Options
    #33
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Terry, I'm certainly not second-guessing your moderating here. I think we have move on from the specific to the general.

    Jack and DF; I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt that you both left out the line "But I do agree that no one should suffer ridicule due to their race." when you quoted me. (I should of course have said "nationality" rather then "race").

    I was certainly NOT suggesting positive descrimination. DF asked why people seem to accept slights towards americans while are sensitive to the same comments towards nigerians and I was explaining my understanding of why that might be so.
    There is a great distance between "explaination of" and "agreement with".

    You both concur that we should be balanced and have uniformity of rules, but neither you (nor indeed anyone else reading this :) ) has offered a suggestion of how our moderators should weigh up the inherent conflict of "fair comment" versus "incitement".

    DeV.


  • Options
    #34
    randylonghorn
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Jack B. Badd wrote: »
    The laughable concept of "positive discrimination" has resulted in notions as "you cannot be sexist towards men or racist towards white people (or Americans, as the case may be)". Personally, I find such notions to be idiotic, not to mention reprehensible.
    Agreed, Jack. I've experienced sexism as a man, I suspect many others here have too. Now in all honesty, I can't say it left any very deep scars on my psyche, but I recognised it for what it was, and indeed challenged it in a couple of instances where I felt it originated in something more entrenched than mere thoughtlessness.

    While I would continue to believe that most sexism is targetted against women, and most racism, at least in the Western world, is targetted against non-whites, there is little doubt in my mind that there are also plenty of "exceptions which prove the rule".

    Certainly the assumption that by definition such things are impossible is, at the very kindest, extremely sloppy thinking.
    DeVore wrote: »
    I agree that you either allow Piss Christ AND the Muhammed caricatures or you ban both. We had the same issue arise here with "Jesus, LOL" and "Muhammed, LOL". Which do you (plural) think we should do? Personally, I'm undecided and I need to give it more thinking time.
    And here we come up against one of the more thorny issues ... where does acceptable humour begin and end? I don't have any revelationary answers, but I'll try to throw in a few thoughts.

    I personally don't have any problem with either "Jesus, LOL" or "Muhammed, LOL", but I have some suspicions as to why some generally rational people who have no problems with the first can get quite uncomfortable about the second.

    We (as in boardsies) for the most part live in or originate from Ireland, England, the US, Australia, New Zealand, etc. ... countries which have strong Christian traditions; countries where the majority are still probably Christian on paper, or at least born to families with a history of Christian belief; countries which still reflect many Christian philosophies and attitudes in their institutions and even in their constitutions ... in short, where Christianity is still conciously or subconsciously viewed as being in a "majority" (safe) position; where it is sometimes in fact seen as still being in a hegemonic position (perhaps with some justification), where that is resented by many, and where thus it is seen as being "fair game". Humour directed towards the prophet or towards Muslims in general though is seen as being directed towards a small minority of the population (at least in Ireland) and I suspect that is partly at the root of some peoples discomfort.

    There is also I think a consciousness of different attitudes within the two traditions. While very pious Christians, for example, will be offended by the indiscriminate use of the name of Jesus in speech, they are in a very definite minority in this, in Ireland anyway. It is more traditional / common here for many people, even strongly religious people, to use the name almost as a punctuation mark, and to pepper our speech with it ... "Jaysus, 'tis cold!" etc. Muslims are generally much more strict regarding their use of the name and the image of the prophet.

    On the broader issue of where is the line between acceptable humour and humour which is unacceptable, well, I don't actually think there is one ... a line, that is. Like many things in life, it's not so much a line as a broad grey band. We* will probably all agree on what IS acceptable, and, perhaps less unanimously, on what is not ... it's that band in the middle that causes the problems. It's often about context ... what is acceptable when a couple of mates down the pub are telling jokes may be very unacceptable to include in a speech at a wedding or family occasion, for example. It may be about who is telling the joke; Irish people can safely tell Irish jokes; black people can tell black jokes; gay people can tell gay jokes; in fact, Irish, black and gay comedians often make a living doing just that. The same jokes told by others in a different context may suddenly sound very different. It may be about intent ... a funny and essentially harmless joke becomes a very different animal when it is told with malice, especially if it appears to be directed at someone present as an obvious taunt.

    Yet humour is very cathartic, and the ability to laugh without malice, and to laugh at ourselves in particular, is a priceless gift. Laughter may not always be the best medicine for what ails you, but it's a very valuable one, and I personally try to both self-medicate and medicate others as much as I can ... tbh, I think life would have me in a looney-bin otherwise! (/listens for cries of "No medical advice on Boards!" :pac:)

    I think, as difficult as it can be at times, that Boards is right to try to navigate that grey area on a case-by-case basis, rather than try to set an absolute and largely imaginary line ... and like all arbitrary lines, it would just tempt people to constantly test it anyway!

    * broadly defined as the bulk of "reasonable" people



    Finally, slightly off topic perhaps, but an interesting aside on all this from my own experience ...

    Some years back, when we were starting college, a very good friend of mine "came out" as "bi, leaning towards gay" (his own definition). To be honest, it was about as much a surprise to me as the news that it rains in Ireland, so it didn't really cause a ripple in our interaction beyond me more or less saying "oh, right ... glad that's over with and out in the open!"

    However, some of his friends were a bit more surprised, and while generally very supportive, he noticed a difference in the way some behaved around him.

    In particular, they would start to tell a joke or to slag him, and suddenly stop, embarrassed. It was almost as if he was exempt from the usual slagging and banter "because he was ... well, you know!!" :rolleyes:

    He completely lost it with them one evening ... and I mean completely, I was there, and I don't think I have ever seen him lose the cool to that extent either before or since! He lit into them ... didn't they realise that they were treating him differently to everyone else? ... why should he be sacrosanct from the usual pishtaking just because of his sexuality? ... did they think he had suddenly turned into some delicate flower who couldn't handle a bit of slagging? ... if they really believed, as they said they did, that his news made no difference to them, why were they tiptoeing around him as if on eggshells?

    Well, that was the gist of it anyway ... he ranted for about 10 minutes, and there were an awful lot of F-words in there that I will spare you from! Then he suddenly started telling gay jokes ... unlike me, he has a talent for remembering every joke he ever heard, and he must have gone on non-stop for the best part of an hour. From wide eyes and mouths and a dumbstruck silence, the room went first to splutters and then to shouts of laughter. As he eventually wound down, people started joining in with new ones. And that was that, more or less ... it took a small bit of time to even out completely, but people started to treat him naturally very soon.

    The point? ... that in trying to be ultra-PC, it is all too easy to end up being even more discriminatory. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.


    (Jeez, that took an awful long time to get down at least semi-comprehensibly!)


  • Options
    #35
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #36
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    DeVore wrote: »
    Terry, I'm certainly not second-guessing your moderating here. I think we have move on from the specific to the general.
    DeV.
    DeV, I'm not being a smart arse here, but I'm not questioning you modding either.
    However, I get the impression from your post that you would rather I left that thread deleted.
    My thinking is that it is a valid reference point for this discussion.

    I believe that it highlights the racist tendencies of some people in this country and that it shouldn't be hidden from public view.
    Not only does it show the racist tendencies, but it also shows how quickly people will jump on a bandwagon and go an a witch hunt.

    I think that in the context of this thread that people be shown the views of others in modern Ireland and that bigotry and racism is quite rampant amongst the keyboards warriors.

    I am now of the impression that threads like the Pamela izevbekhai one reveal the racism in this country and that we can catch these people early on and make ourselves aware of their political and social leanings.
    We can learn more about the mindset of the racists of modern Ireland and try to tackle the issue here, rather than sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I dont think "Boards Ltd" has an opinion either way. This is about what we as rational mature adults want to build a site to give a platform to.

    If we leave it to the moderators then we cant all jump on them when they make a decision because someone somewhere is ALWAYS going to be peeved at that decision. In fact its been my experience that its perfectly possible to find that if you warn someone about "racist stereotyping" you will find people who think you are being too harsh and others who think you are being too soft on the very same decision!

    DeV.


  • Options
    #38
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Terry wrote: »
    DeV, I'm not being a smart arse here, but I'm not questioning you modding either.
    However, I get the impression from your post that you would rather I left that thread deleted.
    My thinking is that it is a valid reference point for this discussion.

    I believe that it highlights the racist tendencies of some people in this country and that it shouldn't be hidden from public view.
    Not only does it show the racist tendencies, but it also shows how quickly people will jump on a bandwagon and go an a witch hunt.

    I think that in the context of this thread that people be shown the views of others in modern Ireland and that bigotry and racism is quite rampant amongst the keyboards warriors.

    I am now of the impression that threads like the Pamela izevbekhai one reveal the racism in this country and that we can catch these people early on and make ourselves aware of their political and social leanings.
    We can learn more about the mindset of the racists of modern Ireland and try to tackle the issue here, rather than sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist.
    Yeah, I agree with you there. When we have agreed a level of "civil debate" we can delete the extreme racism to ensure we arent swamped by the vocal minority.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #39
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #40
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Terry wrote: »
    DeV, I'm not being a smart arse here, but I'm not questioning you modding either.
    However, I get the impression from your post that you would rather I left that thread deleted.
    My thinking is that it is a valid reference point for this discussion.

    I believe that it highlights the racist tendencies of some people in this country and that it shouldn't be hidden from public view.
    Not only does it show the racist tendencies, but it also shows how quickly people will jump on a bandwagon and go an a witch hunt.

    I think that in the context of this thread that people be shown the views of others in modern Ireland and that bigotry and racism is quite rampant amongst the keyboards warriors.

    I am now of the impression that threads like the Pamela izevbekhai one reveal the racism in this country and that we can catch these people early on and make ourselves aware of their political and social leanings.
    We can learn more about the mindset of the racists of modern Ireland and try to tackle the issue here, rather than sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

    I think the thread went ok and was severely moderated at the start. I mean severely in a good way as a pointer to no nonsense allowed. It was publicly viewable what was allowed and not. Still, some chose to post bannable posts.


    What happened was more details came out about the case and relatively new or rare posters jumped on the bandwagon. That is their want and right but there seemed to be an element of gloating on there, not so much racism, just gloating.

    PS. It's AH, you've a tough job. You'll get the odd wrong call but overall ye lot call it right.

    I've seen a few posters get away with a lot there too.
    DeVore wrote: »
    I dont think "Boards Ltd" has an opinion either way. This is about what we as rational mature adults want to build a site to give a platform to.

    If we leave it to the moderators then we cant all jump on them when they make a decision because someone somewhere is ALWAYS going to be peeved at that decision. In fact its been my experience that its perfectly possible to find that if you warn someone about "racist stereotyping" you will find people who think you are being too harsh and others who think you are being too soft on the very same decision!

    DeV.

    Indeed.

    My pet peeve is the pinko, communist, pc, liberal label. Interestingly on that thread it was called on the first page for NO reason, long before the racist card was pulled. whereas the racist stereotype took a page or 2 more.

    As Willie John McBride would say, "get your retaliation in first".

    If anything that card is equally as applied as the Racism card. On AH, that provokes responses.

    Basically, accusing somebody of pinko, liberal, communinist agendas should be treated the same as calls of racism.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #41
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    DeVore wrote: »
    Yeah, I agree with you there. When we have agreed a level of "civil debate" we can delete the extreme racism to ensure we arent swamped by the vocal minority.

    Erm, Might want to clarify that last bit of what you wrote as it comes across as if you'd prefer to delete the racist posts so those (vocal minority ??) that take offense or might complain, will therefore not complain at all ?
    Am I reading that wrong ? Have I read into that too much ?

    EDIT: Or, maybe you mean delete the extreme racist posts so others jumping on that bandwagon don't sway in with rabble rousing similar points, backing up the next, etc., etc., and trying to somehow make it look as a majority rather than a minority ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    Erm, Might want to clarify that last bit of what you wrote as it comes across as if you'd prefer to delete the racist posts so those (vocal minority ??) that take offense or might complain, will therefore not complain at all ?
    Am I reading that wrong ? Have I read into that too much ?

    Think you have. My personal opinion.

    Anyway, it seems people can accuse people of pinko, liberal, softee agendas withh no comeback but call somebody racist.............................

    One is as bad as the other. Completely ruins the thread.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #43
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes :o I actually only just read the rest of the other thread here now...and there was me all happy that a small startup business like boards had progressed itself in these dodgy economical times and lifted themselves above it all to have a majority shareholding bought in by Facebook.
    I'd actually forgotten all about it being April fools day at the time, too busy to remember silly dates :/


  • Options
    #44
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    K-9 wrote: »
    Think you have. My personal opinion.

    Anyway, it seems people can accuse people of pinko, liberal, softee agendas withh no comeback but call somebody racist.............................

    One is as bad as the other. Completely ruins the thread.

    There in lies a problem, while you can easily censor "racist" comments how does one stop "liberal" extremists from posting their opinions? :p


  • Options
    #45
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Attack the post, not the poster has always been our motto. That would seem to cover that situation...

    DeV.


  • Options
    #46
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I'm sticking to my guns that a general statement based on someone's skin colour or nationality contributes nothing of value to a discussion.

    The most recent post I had to action on the Izevbekhai thread on Politics was along the lines that "...as soon as I heard she was Nigerian I knew she was a scammer." The thread contains a lot of interesting and well-informed debate, and crap like that just lowers the signal:noise ratio.

    I also take your point about attitudes towards Americans, but you'll notice that GuanYin tends to take a dim view of such attitudes... ;)


  • Options
    #47
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Re: Dev
    I agree completely. But would you afford the same liberties to someone with an opposite view? ;) I'd like to bet that most extreme liberal posts were attacked and debated where extreme and much less (for want of a better phrase) racist ones were reported rather than debated.
    The problem is by warning one side to be careful what they say while offering open liberties, as long as they don't abuse a poster, to another view will skew the debate. Im not saying that outright racist comments should be allowed or that they add anything to a discussion it's the valid opinions others feel that they don't dare mention in case it appears racist that we lose.
    It's not really a boards thing though it's more an everywhere thing. I actually applaud boards for allowing these conversations where other places would just close them "in case".


  • Options
    #48
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    Erm, Might want to clarify that last bit of what you wrote as it comes across as if you'd prefer to delete the racist posts so those (vocal minority ??) that take offense or might complain, will therefore not complain at all ?
    Am I reading that wrong ? Have I read into that too much ?

    EDIT: Or, maybe you mean delete the extreme racist posts so others jumping on that bandwagon don't sway in with rabble rousing similar points, backing up the next, etc., etc., and trying to somehow make it look as a majority rather than a minority ?
    I'd imagine he's going with the latter.
    The last thing we need is a bunch of extremists finding this site on google and swamping the place with their crap.


  • Options
    #49
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #50
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    See, that constitutes signal, in my book. "Send her home, let her be mutilated" is noise.


  • Options
    #51
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    There in lies a problem, while you can easily censor "racist" comments how does one stop "liberal" extremists from posting their opinions? :p

    Probably similar to xenophobic posters, you debate the post and point it out.

    Still, I'd say you are just as likely to see liberal, student type, pinko etc. thrown as an insult on those threads as "you are a racist".

    Both extremes add nothing to the threads.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    See, that constitutes signal, in my book. "Send her home, let her be mutilated" is noise.

    I was just about to make that same point. To argue that all comments labeled as racism, regardless of motive, are simply the products of ignorance or arrogance is unfair, as some do have some signal within the plethora of noise, both in the offending post and the posts from high horse responders.

    Boards.ie has a wonderful opportunity to bring free speech in Ireland to a new level, but I don't know if Irish people are sufficiently able to distinguish between the spoonfed mantra of the hyper-politically-correct nonsense that sometimes rears its ugly head and posts which appear insensitive at first, but do contain some decent "signal".

    I suppose the issue is to how to make sure that the correct signal to noise ratio can be defended, without being overly harsh on those who post utter noise whenever their hyper-responsive sense of moral/ethical entitlement is touched.

    Maybe Boards.ie needs to tack along, rather than get all unilateral. :)


  • Options
    #53
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #54
    Jack B. Badd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭Jack B. Badd


    DeVore wrote: »
    Jack and DF; I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt that you both left out the line "But I do agree that no one should suffer ridicule due to their race." when you quoted me. (I should of course have said "nationality" rather then "race").

    I was certainly NOT suggesting positive descrimination. DF asked why people seem to accept slights towards americans while are sensitive to the same comments towards nigerians and I was explaining my understanding of why that might be so.
    There is a great distance between "explaination of" and "agreement with".

    Apologies DeVore, my post wasn't meant to come across as an attack rather a continuation of the issue that you raised with regard to context.
    DeVore wrote: »
    You both concur that we should be balanced and have uniformity of rules, but neither you (nor indeed anyone else reading this :) ) has offered a suggestion of how our moderators should weigh up the inherent conflict of "fair comment" versus "incitement".

    IMO, a significant part of the difficulty stems from "fair comment" and "incitement" not being two distinct states but opposite ends of the spectrum of racially sensitive discussion. Presumably, boards as an entity wishes to maintain debate on race sensitive matters (as well as sex, sexual orientation and a number of other issues that are not innately contentious but tend to lead to confrontational exchanges) without promoting undisciplined discussion and unfounded statistical extrapolation over genuine debate.
    Granted, presentation, factual content and the existence & citation of information sources are all factors in the acceptance of a statement that may otherwise be viewed as potentially prejudiced. However, confining such discussions to fora which inherently promote articulate debate would go a long way to restrict instances of incitement. Though AH may be one of the highest traffic areas on boards.ie, it is also potentially its greatest PR liability.
    With that in mind, I would propose a clampdown on topics of a potentially race or gender sensitive nature in AH on the grounds of the relatively lax standards of disciplined debate that are enforced there in contrast to the rest of the site and in particular to such fora as Politics or Humanities.


  • Options
    #55
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Sorry ...but at least to me ...that is just the slightly more eloquent version of racism. The difference between labelling individuals by skin colour or by "sociocultural background" is just the sound, not the message.

    Labelling a whole people with one rubber stamp is pure racism ..no matter how well educated you make the label sound.


    And as for systemic corruption ...do I really need to tell you about people in glass houses? :D


  • Options
    #56
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #57
    Jack B. Badd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭Jack B. Badd


    Post #55 raises an interesting point. You will find everywhere people who bring their own perceptions into a discussion, people who cannot or will not differentiate between an unfounded statistical extrapolation and a founded one with which they don't agree. These people make intelligent debate on any potentially contentious subject as difficult as vocal bigots do.
    Perhaps this kind of response should be clamped down on in tandem with blatant prejudice. It would at least lower the instances of posters "screaming" at each other in a thread that would otherwise become an interesting and useful debate.


  • Options
    #58
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Jack B. Badd wrote: »
    Post #55 raises an interesting point. You will find everywhere people who bring their own perceptions into a discussion, people who cannot or will not differentiate between an unfounded statistical extrapolation and a founded one with which they don't agree. These people make intelligent debate on any potentially contentious subject as difficult as vocal bigots do.
    Perhaps this kind of response should be clamped down on in tandem with blatant prejudice. It would at least lower the instances of posters "screaming" at each other in a thread that would otherwise become an interesting and useful debate.

    Post number 55 ?
    number 55?
    number?

    My (user) name is peasant ...if you want to adress me, have the decency to do so by my name ...I'm not a number.


    But statistics are soo much easier to deal with, aren't they? Reduce individuals to numbers and percentages, deny them their individuality.
    That's the accountancy version of racism.


  • Options
    #59
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Not quite.

    A study of endemic corruption in Nigeria (or Ireland for that matter) per se is not racist. Concluding from it, that just because endemic corruption exists, all Nigerians (or Irish) are corrupt however is.


  • Options
    #60
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Well, now it comes down to a hairsplitting excercise of how to interpret your post(s).

    Above you claim that you "cautioned" against making a generalised (racist) conclusion, whereas in the original post you said
    That doesn't mean that you'll never meet an honest Nigerian
    That doesn't sound like a caution to me but rather like a flippant remark.

    Also in the original post you used strong, emotive words like
    I firmly believe that
    for the other side of your argument, further de-valuing your so called "caution".

    So, to me at least, your statment about endemic integrity versus endemic corruption does indeed have a very strong generalising and therefore racist undertone.


Advertisement