• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On March 22, 2017, a General Motors' factory worker Mark Edwards (59) arrived at his work area inside a GM transmission plant in Toledo. Upon arriving there, he found someone had hung a noose by his work station.

That wasn't the first time Edwards, who's worked at various GM plants since 1977, has encountered racial harassment and slurs, all of which he reported to his union reps and managers; however, as with the prior incidents, he received nothing more than lip-service in response to his complaints. The March incident was, however, the first one about which he determined to no longer "grin and bear it.

Edwards and eight other workers have sued GM, alleging the company has allowed racial discrimination and has failed to take prompt corrective action after the workers reported acts of racism at the GM Powertrain & Fabrications plant. Some of the nine, including Edwards, still work there, and others have quit or transferred to other GM plants.
(Source)​

Specific behaviors the lawsuit cites:​


  • [*=1]White employees calling black employees "boy."
    [*=1]A female black employee being called a crude, racist slur.
    [*=1]Swastikas painted and scratched on restroom stalls.
    [*=1]Stick figures with nooses around their necks drawn on restroom stalls.
    [*=1]White workers wore shirts under their coveralls with visible Nazi symbols on them.
    [*=1]Black employees told to be careful because a white employee's "daddy was in the Ku Klan Klan."
    [*=1]White workers telling black workers to go back to Africa.
    [*=1]"Whites Only" signs hung on restroom stall doors and written on walls outside the men's restroom.
    [*=1]A white supervisor, at a meeting, saying, "What's the big deal about nooses? There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it." The supervisor was not disciplined, the lawsuit said.
GM's response:​
"Every day, everyone at General Motors is expected to uphold a set of values that are integral to the fabric of our culture. Discrimination and harassment are not acceptable and in stark contrast to how we expect people to show up at work. General Motors is taking this matter seriously and addressing it through the appropriate court process."
-- Detroit Free Press, "Nooses, Nazis and racist slurs tolerated at GM plant, lawsuit says
There're subtle forms of racism, and unabashedly, conservatives seem abjectly ignorant of them; thus it wouldn't surprise me to see some of them posit a cockamamy exculpation, perhaps that a bunch of Jains put the swastikas on the walls and that it was they wearing thus decorated shirts. Asserting that every Black lynching was warranted, wearing swastikas, admonitions to Blacks that allude to KKK involvement, and hoisting a noose at a man's work station aren't subtle!

That is what's been going on at GM. And the American people, including Black Americans, saw their tax dollars used to bail out that firm. Buried, not bailed out, is what GM deserved.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

On March 22, 2017, a General Motors' factory worker Mark Edwards (59) arrived at his work area inside a GM transmission plant in Toledo. Upon arriving there, he found someone had hung a noose by his work station.

That wasn't the first time Edwards, who's worked at various GM plants since 1977, has encountered racial harassment and slurs, all of which he reported to his union reps and managers; however, as with the prior incidents, he received nothing more than lip-service in response to his complaints. The March incident was, however, the first one about which he determined to no longer "grin and bear it.

Edwards and eight other workers have sued GM, alleging the company has allowed racial discrimination and has failed to take prompt corrective action after the workers reported acts of racism at the GM Powertrain & Fabrications plant. Some of the nine, including Edwards, still work there, and others have quit or transferred to other GM plants.
(Source)​

Specific behaviors the lawsuit cites:​


  • [*=1]White employees calling black employees "boy."
    [*=1]A female black employee being called a crude, racist slur.
    [*=1]Swastikas painted and scratched on restroom stalls.
    [*=1]Stick figures with nooses around their necks drawn on restroom stalls.
    [*=1]White workers wore shirts under their coveralls with visible Nazi symbols on them.
    [*=1]Black employees told to be careful because a white employee's "daddy was in the Ku Klan Klan."
    [*=1]White workers telling black workers to go back to Africa.
    [*=1]"Whites Only" signs hung on restroom stall doors and written on walls outside the men's restroom.
    [*=1]A white supervisor, at a meeting, saying, "What's the big deal about nooses? There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it." The supervisor was not disciplined, the lawsuit said.
GM's response:​
"Every day, everyone at General Motors is expected to uphold a set of values that are integral to the fabric of our culture. Discrimination and harassment are not acceptable and in stark contrast to how we expect people to show up at work. General Motors is taking this matter seriously and addressing it through the appropriate court process."
-- Detroit Free Press, "Nooses, Nazis and racist slurs tolerated at GM plant, lawsuit says
There're subtle forms of racism, and unabashedly, conservatives seem abjectly ignorant of them; thus it wouldn't surprise me to see some of them posit a cockamamy exculpation, perhaps that a bunch of Jains put the swastikas on the walls and that it was they wearing thus decorated shirts. Asserting that every Black lynching was warranted, wearing swastikas, admonitions to Blacks that allude to KKK involvement, and hoisting a noose at a man's work station aren't subtle!

That is what's been going on at GM. And the American people, including Black Americans, saw their tax dollars used to bail out that firm. Buried, not bailed out, is what GM deserved.

The NLRB should come in a put their foots on the necks of the heads of the UAW over this.

This is unacceptable.

^^^ says a staunch labor union guy^^^
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The northern states have been/are every bit as unaccepting of desegregation of the black and white citizens. I hadn’t been in the service very long when Boston showed it’s displeasure at bussing children to other school districts. I thought then that geographically it was odd, but with further reading, northern attitudes aren’t all that different among certain people.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The NLRB should come in a put their foots on the necks of the heads of the UAW over this.

The UAW isn't plant management.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The UAW isn't plant management.

The article in the OP said that it was reported to Union Reps and nothing was done.

The shop steward should be made to answer for this as well as any Union rep that did nothing.

The NLRB should get involved.

Believe it or not, it is one of the last options that a laborer has when the Union won’t stand behind them for whatever reason.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

That is what's been going on at GM. And the American people, including Black Americans, saw their tax dollars used to bail out that firm. Buried, not bailed out, is what GM deserved.​


Anyone involved in any of the described acts should be fired and/or prosecuted. Management and Union reps who were notified of harassment/intimidation and did not take appropriate action should be fired and/or prosecuted (Union rep should immediately be removed from his/her position), and possibly, Mary Barra should resign.

Beyond that, there is no good reason to shut down one of the largest employers in America. Hundreds of thousands of workers, their families, as well as workers of suppliers to GM and their families do not deserve to be punished for the actions of others.​
 
Last edited:
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The northern states have been/are every bit as unaccepting of desegregation of the black and white citizens. I hadn’t been in the service very long when Boston showed it’s displeasure at bussing children to other school districts. I thought then that geographically it was odd, but with further reading, northern attitudes aren’t all that different among certain people.

Didn't we resolve all this race stuff somewhere back in the 1860's? Sure we did.

Lets have more of those, "racial strife in this country is overblown" posts. I wonder why I have not seen many of those arguments lately. I guess it must finally AGAIN be hard to make those arguments with a straight face.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Anyone involved in any of the described acts should be fired and/or prosecuted. Management and Union reps who were notified of harassment/intimidation and did not take appropriate action should be fired and/or prosecuted (Union rep should immediately be removed from his/her position), and possibly, Mary Barra should resign.

Beyond that, there is no good reason to shut down one of the largest employers in America. Hundreds of thousands of workers, their families, as well as workers of suppliers to GM and their families do not deserve to be punished for the actions of others.

Red:
Perhaps you don't ascribe to the "company you keep" model; I do. In my experience, not tolerating within my orbit people who don't exhibit probity and lawfulness has served me well. Accordingly, I think doing so would make clear that each of us has an obligation to be circumspect about the probity of the company we keep. It'd make poignantly clear that racists are NOKD. Eventually, one'll realize that nobody will associate with one because of one's depravity. At that point, people make a choice: change their world view or dwell ignominy as a marginalized person. Some folks will, as is their right, chose the latter tack. They can start their own manufacture.

Be that as it may, were it legally possible to, in the wake of events such as that Edwards and others have suffered, hold corporate/union executives culpable for the "tone at the top" they establish/forbear. But it's not. Our legal systems allows them to get away saying crap like "I didn't know" and "nobody told me," all the while disregarding the fact that all a company president, COO, union president, etc. need do is periodically just frigging ask their HR director or firm counsel, "Hey, what sexual or racial discrimination/harassment complaints have there been and how have we handled them?"

Were GM's management to have properly handled the discrimination, hatred and harassment complaints:
  • Upon receiving Edwards' complaint, GM and the union would have reported some of the noted behaviors to the district attorney, or some other LEO, who would have, in turn, brought a hate crime/speech case against the perpetrator(s).
  • Edwards wouldn't have been suing GM. He and some of his colleagues would have been witnesses in the state's case, not plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit.
Correctly and truly having a "no tolerance" mindset and policy about such things would have been:
  • Less costly route for GM
  • Given justice and confidence to Edwards and his coworkers, and
  • Established a tone at GM that made it clear that anyone who brings that crap into the GM workplace will find themselves not only without a job, but potentially also without the worries of feeding, clothing and sheltering themselves.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The article in the OP said that it was reported to Union Reps and nothing was done.

The shop steward should be made to answer for this as well as any Union rep that did nothing.

The NLRB should get involved.

Believe it or not, it is one of the last options that a laborer has when the Union won’t stand behind them for whatever reason.

A state civil rights commission is or was at some point involved.
 
Last edited:
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Video story here.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Red:
Perhaps you don't ascribe to the "company you keep" model; I do. In my experience, not tolerating within my orbit people who don't exhibit probity and lawfulness has served me well. Accordingly, I think doing so would make clear that each of us has an obligation to be circumspect about the probity of the company we keep. It'd make poignantly clear that racists are NOKD. Eventually, one'll realize that nobody will associate with one because of one's depravity. At that point, people make a choice: change their world view or dwell ignominy as a marginalized person. Some folks will, as is their right, chose the latter tack. They can start their own manufacture.

Be that as it may, were it legally possible to, in the wake of events such as that Edwards and others have suffered, hold corporate/union executives culpable for the "tone at the top" they establish/forbear. But it's not. Our legal systems allows them to get away saying crap like "I didn't know" and "nobody told me," all the while disregarding the fact that all a company president, COO, union president, etc. need do is periodically just frigging ask their HR director or firm counsel, "Hey, what sexual or racial discrimination/harassment complaints have there been and how have we handled them?"

Were GM's management to have properly handled the discrimination, hatred and harassment complaints:
  • Upon receiving Edwards' complaint, GM and the union would have reported some of the noted behaviors to the district attorney, or some other LEO, who would have, in turn, brought a hate crime/speech case against the perpetrator(s).
  • Edwards wouldn't have been suing GM. He and some of his colleagues would have been witnesses in the state's case, not plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit.
Correctly and truly having a "no tolerance" mindset and policy about such things would have been:
  • Less costly route for GM
  • Given justice and confidence to Edwards and his coworkers, and
  • Established a tone at GM that made it clear that anyone who brings that crap into the GM workplace will find themselves not only without a job, but potentially also without the worries of feeding, clothing and sheltering themselves.

I do ascribe to “the company you keep” philosophy. What you are saying is that many, many people who don’t know or have ever met any of the perpetrators of the various acts/crimes should be made to suffer alongside those who bear individual responsibility. That makes no sense at all. Do you think it would be fair or proper for you to lose your job because someone who you’ve never met within your employer’s organization did something wrong?

And as for your statement on holding upper management legally responsible for their inactions, you’re wrong. There are numerous incidents of CEO’s/COO’s, etc. being fined, fired, and even jailed. Yeah, they can afford the best legal representation money can buy, that often results in them either getting off scott free or at least minimizing their exposure/punishment. Big difference between that and no legal accountability.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

I do ascribe to “the company you keep” philosophy. What you are saying is that many, many people who don’t know or have ever met any of the perpetrators of the various acts/crimes should be made to suffer alongside those who bear individual responsibility. That makes no sense at all. Do you think it would be fair or proper for you to lose your job because someone who you’ve never met within your employer’s organization did something wrong?

And as for your statement on holding upper management legally responsible for their inactions, you’re wrong. There are numerous incidents of CEO’s/COO’s, etc. being fined, fired, and even jailed. Yeah, they can afford the best legal representation money can buy, that often results in them either getting off scott free or at least minimizing their exposure/punishment. Big difference between that and no legal accountability.

Red:
As the former managing partner of a firm (I sold the firm to a far larger "competitor" and then became the principal in charge of the practice unit that my firm formed the start of), I was in exactly that position. Fortunately, none of my people (fellow partners or staff) comported themselves in ways that jeopardized my firm's status as a going concern, but any one of them could have. Were my firm to have faced a suit like Edwards', it'd have ruined me and and my equity partners, besmirched my reputation in the industry as a manager and as an individual of fine character, closed down the firm and forced all my people to find new jobs.

To preempt such a thing from happening, I defined a culture wherein it was clear that harassment of any sort, no matter how minor wasn't tolerated. I even told my employees that if they had such notions, the instant such starts to connect to my firm, they may have to find new work. I made it clear that if that meant they just didn't share their personal views about things, then that's what it meant, because all I was paying them for were their ideas and efforts pertaining to delivering solutions for our current and prospective clients.

Did I have some good people leave? A couple; I didn't have to fire them for they figured out their "BS" wasn't going to fit in in the firm. I replaced them with other good people, and that worked out just fine for me and my firm. I presume it worked out well enough too for the folks who left....I can't say for sure, however, because, prior to my retiring, their name never reappeared before me (as a speaker mentioned in a conference program, writer of a paper, winner of an award, individual cited in an industry publication, innovator of a new "something," assumption to a senior executive position in a firm of note, etc.) indicating they'd established renown within the industry.

So fair or not fair, it's the way it goes....But that fate need not befall one if one refuses to keep company with reprobates and one with alacrity acts to excise such boors from the "corpus" before they can do the sort of damage that'd bring down a firm. And what does it take for one to do that? Just a little decency, a little problity.


Blue:
"Getting off scot free" doesn't sound like jailed or fired or something approximating either.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

This stuff goes on everywhere...nothing new here at all.
It's good some will answer for this but it happens every day in almost every work place.
North/South means nothing. Look at schools, schools in the North are more segregated than the South. It's all smoke and mirrors.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Red:
As the former managing partner of a firm (I sold the firm to a far larger "competitor" and then became the principal in charge of the practice unit that my firm formed the start of), I was in exactly that position. Fortunately, none of my people (fellow partners or staff) comported themselves in ways that jeopardized my firm's status as a going concern, but any one of them could have. Were my firm to have faced a suit like Edwards', it'd have ruined me and and my equity partners, besmirched my reputation in the industry as a manager and as an individual of fine character, closed down the firm and forced all my people to find new jobs.

To preempt such a thing from happening, I defined a culture wherein it was clear that harassment of any sort, no matter how minor wasn't tolerated. I even told my employees that if they had such notions, the instant such starts to connect to my firm, they may have to find new work. I made it clear that if that meant they just didn't share their personal views about things, then that's what it meant, because all I was paying them for were their ideas and efforts pertaining to delivering solutions for our current and prospective clients.

Did I have some good people leave? A couple; I didn't have to fire them for they figured out their "BS" wasn't going to fit in in the firm. I replaced them with other good people, and that worked out just fine for me and my firm. I presume it worked out well enough too for the folks who left....I can't say for sure, however, because, prior to my retiring, their name never reappeared before me (as a speaker mentioned in a conference program, writer of a paper, winner of an award, individual cited in an industry publication, innovator of a new "something," assumption to a senior executive position in a firm of note, etc.) indicating they'd established renown within the industry.

So fair or not fair, it's the way it goes....But that fate need not befall one if one refuses to keep company with reprobates and one with alacrity acts to excise such boors from the "corpus" before they can do the sort of damage that'd bring down a firm. And what does it take for one to do that? Just a little decency, a little problity.


Blue:
"Getting off scot free" doesn't sound like jailed or fired or something approximating either.

A very eloquent response, but not a direct answer to my question. Do you believe that the many other employees of GM, their families, along with the employees of supplying companies and their families should be made to suffer for the actions of people they do not know/have never met? Do you consider that a just consequence for other’s offenses?

You said there was no legal way to hold executives responsible. That was untrue. Executives can, and have been held legally accountable. They all haven’t gone to jail or even suffered greatly financially, but they have been held responsible.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

I do ascribe to “the company you keep” philosophy. What you are saying is that many, many people who don’t know or have ever met any of the perpetrators of the various acts/crimes should be made to suffer alongside those who bear individual responsibility. That makes no sense at all. Do you think it would be fair or proper for you to lose your job because someone who you’ve never met within your employer’s organization did something wrong?

And as for your statement on holding upper management legally responsible for their inactions, you’re wrong. There are numerous incidents of CEO’s/COO’s, etc. being fined, fired, and even jailed. Yeah, they can afford the best legal representation money can buy, that often results in them either getting off scott free or at least minimizing their exposure/punishment. Big difference between that and no legal accountability.

Red, FWIW, and off-topic:
It's "scot-free" (or scot free if one doesn't feel obliged to hypenate). If one happens upon the very odd circumstance to use the term punily while also referring to Scotsmen in general, "Scot-free" would be apropos because the capitalization would invoke the proper noun correlate for the pun). In any case, the idiom hasn't ever been correctly spelled "scott free," or "Scott free," or the hyphenated variants thereof.

Just sharing...perhaps someday you'll find it useful to know the correct spelling.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

A very eloquent response, but not a direct answer to my question. Do you believe that the many other employees of GM, their families, along with the employees of supplying companies and their families should be made to suffer for the actions of people they do not know/have never met? Do you consider that a just consequence for other’s offenses?

You said there was no legal way to hold executives responsible. That was untrue. Executives can, and have been held legally accountable. They all haven’t gone to jail or even suffered greatly financially, but they have been held responsible.

Blue:
In response to your earlier question I highlighted in red, I wrote,

"As the former managing partner of a firm (I sold the firm to a far larger "competitor" and then became the principal in charge of the practice unit that my firm formed the start of), I was in exactly that position....So fair or not fair, it's the way it goes....But that fate need not befall one if one refuses to keep company with reprobates and one with alacrity acts to excise such boors from the "corpus" before they can do the sort of damage that'd bring down a firm. And what does it take for one to do that? Just a little decency, a little problity."

Those remarks are the weft and warp of my answer to your question. If you want from me a binary answer to the question you earlier posed, well, you're not going to get one because I don't see the matter as binarily answerable given the principles by which I live my life. My ethical system is rarely "black and white," and the matter at the heart of your inquiry isn't among the few ethical matters I find to be "black and white."
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

During the last few decades, we have learned NOT to take at face value such accusations until they are proved after an impartial investigation.


On MSNBC, for example. they have given a certain individual his own nightly program, although he is responsible for one of the most disgusting hoaxes in American crime.


So let's all calm down and see who is telling the truth and who is lying.


Even the liberal media have reported recent incidents that were fabricated by the "victims" for sympathy or money.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Red, FWIW, and off-topic:
It's "scot-free" (or scot free if one doesn't feel obliged to hypenate). If one happens upon the very odd circumstance to use the term punily while also referring to Scotsmen in general, "Scot-free" would be apropos because the capitalization would invoke the proper noun correlate for the pun). In any case, the idiom hasn't ever been correctly spelled "scott free," or "Scott free," or the hyphenated variants thereof.

Just sharing...perhaps someday you'll find it useful to know the correct spelling.

Thanks for the education. :thumbs:

Blue:
In response to your earlier question I highlighted in red, I wrote,

"As the former managing partner of a firm (I sold the firm to a far larger "competitor" and then became the principal in charge of the practice unit that my firm formed the start of), I was in exactly that position....So fair or not fair, it's the way it goes....But that fate need not befall one if one refuses to keep company with reprobates and one with alacrity acts to excise such boors from the "corpus" before they can do the sort of damage that'd bring down a firm. And what does it take for one to do that? Just a little decency, a little problity."

Those remarks are the weft and warp of my answer to your question. If you want from me a binary answer to the question you earlier posed, well, you're not going to get one because I don't see the matter as binarily answerable given the principles by which I live my life. My ethical system is rarely "black and white," and the matter at the heart of your inquiry isn't among the few ethical matters I find to be "black and white."

That’s fine. I was just looking for an answer with more substance and less word salad. Your original comment will have to suffice as an explanation of your position.
.... Buried, not bailed out, is what GM deserved.​

Your solution: everyone loses.​
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Thanks for the education. :thumbs:



That’s fine. I was just looking for an answer with more substance and less word salad. Your original comment will have to suffice as an explanation of your position.

Your solution: everyone loses.
Red:
First:
I didn't propose a solution. I described a portion of my ethical system.


Second
Your oversimplification of the system I describe is exactly that, an oversimplification. By my ethical system, the only folks who "lose" are they who are willing to (1) be, (2) associate with, and/or (3) forbear reprobates. If you think everybody falls into one of those three categories, then, sure everybody loses. I know for a fact that not everybody does fall into those categories, so, no, not everybody loses.


Blue:
You're welcome.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Your oversimplification of the system I describe is exactly that, an oversimplification. By my ethical system, the only folks who "lose" are they who are willing to (1) be, (2) associate with, and/or (3) forbear reprobates. If you think everybody falls into one of those three categories, then, sure everybody loses. I know for a fact that not everybody does fall into those categories, so, no, not everybody loses.
Your “ethical system” doesn’t address the innocent folks not included in one of your self described categories.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Your “ethical system” doesn’t address the innocent folks not included in one of your self described categories.

All sorts of innocent folks get screwed by all sorts of things. The furloughed workers and the kids of furloughed workers who can't participate in whatever "kid thing" they would were their parents not gov't employees are innocent folks screwed by the ill-considered actions of others.

Nobody is free from that risk. When what was once but a risk comes to fruition, one must deal with it.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Didn't we resolve all this race stuff somewhere back in the 1860's? Sure we did.

Lets have more of those, "racial strife in this country is overblown" posts. I wonder why I have not seen many of those arguments lately. I guess it must finally AGAIN be hard to make those arguments with a straight face.

Some of us had bought into this crazy myth that human societies progress through history.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

All sorts of innocent folks get screwed by all sorts of things. The furloughed workers and the kids of furloughed workers who can't participate in whatever "kid thing" they would were their parents not gov't employees are innocent folks screwed by the ill-considered actions of others.

Nobody is free from that risk. When what was once but a risk comes to fruition, one must deal with it.
The closest you’ve come to a direct answer. You would screw over many times more innocent people just to punish the guilty.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

The closest you’ve come to a direct answer. You would screw over many times more innocent people just to punish the guilty.

Choices have consequences.
 
Re: GM Supervisor: "There was never a black person who was lynched that didn't deserve it."

Choices have consequences.
And given the opportunity, you’d screw over hundreds of thousands of innocent people just to make a point. Sounds familiar.
 
Back
Top Bottom