Hacker News Reader

Comment by whisps | Hacker News Reader

So the courts decide calling the family and the store racist was libel and slanderous, and it was upheld after sever appeals. Despite that, you are trying to claim that the Gibson's are racist? I don't understand what point you're making. I'm sure these comments were taken into account in the court proceedings and decisions, so why bring it up here. I'm not condoning what was said, but this puts nothing in a new light, as the court already ruled on what you are claiming.

I suppose that depends entirely on what "*" is blanking out. Given the context, the grand-kid seems to be upset at the protestors. If "*" is a racist slur, then yeah... (still says nothing for sure about the parents or grand parents, though) but if it is just some general swear word, then he sounds more like an angry person with a potty mouth.

Here's the full post, but the bad words are still redacted (which is insane to redact "evidence," leaving us to assume he used a slur, but whatever). Based on context I think it's probably just a swear word, but the post doesn't make him look good. He even says this situation is "making [him] racist" and says people deserve to die.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-lorain/jud...

Sure, I read the article. If he had used a racial slur, most media would report it something like "used the 'n-word'". They did not, and thus I can only guess he did not (or perhaps the version the media got was redacted? I can't imagine why a court would redact a bad word, racial slur or not...)

This is also the grand kid of the business owners. There can be significant differences across generations of families in attitudes.

none of those dumb things he said on social media affect my opinion of the case against oberlin.

Yes, I'm assuming it's the f-word.

Swear words are almost never totally redacted in common usage, the first consonant is maintained so you know which one.

By totally redacting the swear words, we're left to assume the worst -- maybe it was the n-word?

But if it were, you can be sure that would have been reported. The fact that it wasn't means it's almost certainly just the f-word.

But that those redacting it probably did so intentionally to try to make it look worse. Which is in bad faith.

Sometimes the court can uphold the law and yet an undesirable state of affairs can persist. Those comments were racist, and furthermore it seems the family has not acknowledged that fact or apologized for it. This would definitely affect my likelihood of shopping there--all else being equal, I'd greatly prefer to have business owners in my community who don't espouse racist beliefs.

I can no longer edit my comment and feel the need to add to it: upon reading the FB post (https://tinyurl.com/2h9rmkzu) this points to the bigger issue that is worth at least mentioning. Often people who are not very eloquent try their best to state their (sometimes naive but often not ill-meaning) views, instead of being treated as the beginning of a conversation (in which the person is validated and a dialogue forms), their words are publicized and they are demonized, which polarizes the issue. It is deeply unfortunate that in this case somebody chose to publicize rather than attempting to start a dialogue.

The facebook posts made by Allyn Gibson make it clear he is racist, which is how he earned that reputation. The court didn't hold Oberlin College responsible to pay because Allyn wasn't racist, he is racist. They held the college responsible because an administrator was on site for the protests and handing out fliers making it seem as though the college endorsed the protests. If that administrator had not been there, the college would not be responsible for any damages as it's otherwise perfectly legal for any of its students to protest anything they like including racist individuals and their family establishments.

In my opinion, the statement "not my fault most black ppl around my area suck" is pretty racist. Most people in my life would as well. The court's ruling, and the laws and rules and standards they used to make it, do not dictate the way me or mine form our opinions. There's a reading of this story where there could also be outrage at punishment for calling a racist a racist.

I recommend people click into the link and read the full quote.

The quote snippet is out of context and feels like its done strategically.

those asterisks are downright deceptive -- the character count and image suggests it's "fucks", but at first glance it reads as something a lot worse

Maybe 100% of students choose to never again patronize the bakery and think that Oberlin shouldn't have to pay the judgement ... tough, not relevant.

Uhm, this comment section is literally full of people attacking the students for exactly that and this article puts a frame on things that makes it clear that they may well have been reasonable. Like idk as someone said the court made a decision, but I would judge this kid to be racist based on the statements in the article. And yes I did read the article. That is totally relevant

The second statement is censoring the word "fucks" which is not racist. It was used in this context to try and make it seem like a different word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com