Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

vpi6 t1_jbuw5qr wrote

100% wrong. The vote last month was about whether to add the dry cleaner building to the historic register - a process that was already in the works when the new tenants did the paint job. The county took no action about the paint job because it legally could do nothing about it. The family that owned the site and a restaurant next door were hoping to develop the site into something that very likely would have been housing. Something that would have been impossible with the completely unwarranted historical designation forced onto them by stupid people who think it’s their inalienable right to look at old buildings no matter the cost.

If you’re in love with the dry cleaner so much then BUY IT. Don’t use the to coercive powers of the government to maintain it at someone else’s expense. That’s morally reprehensible.

2

Buddyblue21 t1_jbutan7 wrote

Yeah, and a lot of black people didn’t allow their children to have natural hair. Where do you think that all came from?

And doesn’t your own point refute your argument? Styles change. So it’s largely his parents who didn’t keep up with the times.

Though there are exceptions, the perception that cornrows are thuggish is overwhelmingly a white perspective rather than a black one and that’s what’s at play here.

4

MyBFFCrackers t1_jbus0il wrote

Oh my gawwww it’s so troubling! The mods need to shut this post down immediately!!! Jeeeesus Christ calm down. The only “troubling” thing here is you saying “problematic”. Kaepernick is a little cry baby who’s talking shit about his own parents for some fame in this current race obsessed culture - that’s “problematic”.

0

MyBFFCrackers t1_jbur7tu wrote

It wasn’t just white peoples who thought cornrows looked thuggish, and years ago that’s what they were associated with. Even a white girl wearing cornrows looked a certain way. Tattoos used to carry a certain stigma too, not anymore. Styles, attitudes, and culture change all the time. It’s not that complicated unless you’re trying to make it something it’s not.

1

Buddyblue21 t1_jbuqw4t wrote

Your blind spot is that cornrows in the black community are generally not seen as sloppy or thuggish. Your comment seems to indicate that you feel it is. That’s more of (some) white people’s perceptions. So it’s literal racism when telling a minority group to conform to the dominant racial group’s perception of acceptable appearance - especially as it relates to hair where there’s obvious genetic and subsequent cultural differences. I guess you could argue he should’ve accepted the status quo - but that’s hardly a case for proving it isn’t problematic. By that measure, all black people 50 years ago shouldn’t challenge to having to wear a form of straight hair.

I understand that parents from all types of backgrounds correct their children in their appearance, but this circumstance demonstrates an example where adoptive parents need to be culturally sensitive and aware. I’m sure they did many things right and cared for him - he even says so in the article. But it doesn’t mean they were right in this circumstance. They, like anyone else, don’t have to be fundamentally racist in order to still have underlying racial biases and blind spots.

0

vpi6 t1_jbupoyv wrote

Don’t be absurd. That building is completely worthless as an historical place. My county’s own planning board denied the application. Had it gone through, it would have imposed significant and costly restrictions on the unwilling owners and been a net negative for the surrounding community. Turns out preserving debatably pretty looking building don’t help people.

It’s absolutely sickening people valued that building over housing people of my generation. I do not trust the values or basic morals of anyone who thinks that.

2