Judge Suspended for Wearing Blackface Makeup to a Party

[paulney]

Why do you have a problem with racial slurs against whites, but not stereotyping blacks as criminals? Care to explain?

Who is stereotyping blacks as criminals? The judge? Here we are at the beginning of the thread: judge dressed up as a black criminal. He must be strerotyping blacks! Bastard!!oneone. Mill, you are going nowhere.

 

[Wuffsunie]

What I want to know is how he ever ended up on charges in the first place. This sounded like a private party amongst family and friends. How'd it ever get to that high a legal proceeding?

 

[paulney]

I'm sorry, but I have to withdraw myself from this thread temporarily. I need to work.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
What I want to know is how he ever ended up on charges in the first place. This sounded like a private party amongst family and friends. How'd it ever get to that high a legal proceeding?

Because he's a judge, as posted above, they have to live to a higher standard. How high that standard reaches, and how far "dressing as a black criminal" crosses the line are the arguments here.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Phoenix86How do we get from dressing as a black criminal (we can admit they do exist, right?) to him being biased?

No, he wouldn't have to dresss up on the bench to prove bias, he would have to make biased ruling, which he hasn't (according to what's posted here). Yes, it shows he *might* be biased, but it doesn't prove it.

Remember, this was for a costume party, during halloween. when your in a costume, you a "playing" someone else. Do you really think people dressing up as the devil are satanic, or a people dressing up as a zombie are going to eat your brains?

Why did he have to change his color to play a criminal? 😕

Answering questions with a question is a sign of an undefensable position.

Umm, no it isn't. I'm asking for clarification on why he had to be black to play a criminal. If you think asking a question on top of a question is the sign of an indefensible position, then you really should get a college degree. Seriously. Please answer my question seeking to clarify what you mean. Otherwise I'm not sure my candor will be what you are looking for. For the record, what is an undefensable position? Are you just making things up?

You will answer my questions right?

I'm trying to, but you can't seem to clarify what you are looking for.

Esp. the zombie thing, I really want to know if you think people dressing as a zombie on halloween want to eat brains.

I'm not sure I understand. I don't believe anyone accused the guy of actually being a black criminal. That's where your logic is leading, because it certainly doesn't follow your premise.

you answer that question, you will realize how pointless your respons is.

I gather you are unaware of logical fallacies. If you were...

So to answer your questions. He can "play" and color criminal he wants, no different than he could "play" satan himself. It's halloween, a day where it's accepted to "play" a role other than yourself.

Can I get that in English, please? It is never accepted for a judge to engage in behavior that is denigrating to the judicial system -- regardless of what day of the year it is.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: paulney

It further highlights how ignorant you are to say that Chris Rock's comedy act is comparable to a criminal judge deciding the guilt and innocence of an individual or their sentencing.

Chris Rock comedy act is televised and watched nationally. How do you think his racial jokes are influencing the black population? Let's say we presume an average black adult perfectly separates his 'jokes' from reality (why are Rock's ratings so high then?), but what about teenagers growing up? I would argue that Chris Rock is aggravating the problem for the nation, as opposed to the local judge who was not found to be racially biased by his colleagues. Nice jump to conclusions.

Can you show me how high Chris Rock's ratings are. You are making a claim that he has high ratings, so I'd like to see them. I'd also like some proof that the judge was found not to be racially biased by his colleagues. Two claims you just made without any proof.

Second one is easy: read the OP (oh, the irony).
First one is tougher: I can't find the official ratings, but link will give you an idea.

Show me in the OP where they found the judge "not found to be racially biased by his colleagues." I didn't make the claim about Chris Rock having high ratings(which is subjective anyway), but you did, thus I'd like some proof.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill
I'd also like some proof that the judge was found not to be racially biased by his colleagues. Two claims you just made without any proof.

"The justices agreed Ellender did not mean to insult blacks. Nevertheless, they ordered him to take a sociology course "which will assist him in achieving a greater understanding of racial sensitivity."

The judges did the right thing. There was no proof of bias, but there was a raise of concern, which is why he's going to a course.

Umm, I'm sorry, but that doesn't equate "was not found to be racially biased by his colleagues." They agreed that he didn't intend to insult blacks, and not that he wasn't racially biased. paulney made a completely different claim than what the judges actually said.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: paulney

Why do you have a problem with racial slurs against whites, but not stereotyping blacks as criminals? Care to explain?

Who is stereotyping blacks as criminals? The judge? Here we are at the beginning of the thread: judge dressed up as a black criminal. He must be strerotyping blacks! Bastard!!oneone. Mill, you are going nowhere.

He is a white male. Why would he change the color of his skin if he wasn't "dressing up" like a black person? :roll:

 

[rickn]

moral of this story

Judges, stick to George Washington costumes

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
What I want to know is how he ever ended up on charges in the first place. This sounded like a private party amongst family and friends. How'd it ever get to that high a legal proceeding?

Typically, the Supreme Court of a state or a higher court, decide whether another judge violated ethical or behavioral standards.

The court ruled the judge had violated the state's judicial canons.

 

[Phoenix86]

Jesus do you have to be so obtuse? I DID answer you questions of "clarification" (BS, just answer my fvcking questions, you don't need clarification) you say you don't get it. I'm not an english major, but I re-read my statements, and I see complete sentences that form a thought.

OK. Well do this simple style.

Q: Why did he have to change his color to play a criminal?
A: He didn't have to. However, what he dresses as doesn't reflect his beliefs, it's halloween. EX. I dress as a zombie, and I ues a prop of a brain. I'm not saying "zombies kill people and eat brains" just like he isn't saying "blacks are criminal." It's just a fvcking costume on halloween.

Still waiting on the answers to my Q.

 

[rickn]

going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill
I'd also like some proof that the judge was found not to be racially biased by his colleagues. Two claims you just made without any proof.

"The justices agreed Ellender did not mean to insult blacks. Nevertheless, they ordered him to take a sociology course "which will assist him in achieving a greater understanding of racial sensitivity."

The judges did the right thing. There was no proof of bias, but there was a raise of concern, which is why he's going to a course.

Umm, I'm sorry, but that doesn't equate "was not found to be racially biased by his colleagues." They agreed that he didn't intend to insult blacks, and not that he wasn't racially biased. paulney made a completely different claim than what the judges actually said.

If they found bias, then the above statement woudn't be correct, because he would have intended insult. We can only go off of what's here, we aren't in a Q&A session with the judges. What we see here is the justices don't think he was meant to insult people.

Where is your proof he WAS biased? You don't prove negatives.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: rickn
going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

And dressing as the devil or a zombie is satanic. Right. Gotcha.

 

[Babbles]

If it was anybody but a judge or some figure of authority then I could see it being a joke of some sort. However as others pointed out, due to his position that was a prettydumb thing to do.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn
going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

And dressing as the devil or a zombie is satanic. Right. Gotcha.

those are fictional characters. Black people are real people with real feelings in case you didn't already know

Although, Calista Flockhart could pass for a skeleton

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Jesus do you have to be so obtuse? I DID answer you questions of "clarification" (BS, just answer my fvcking questions, you don't need clarification) you say you don't get it. I'm not an english major, but I re-read my statements, and I see complete sentences that form a thought.

OK. Well do this simple style.

Q: Why did he have to change his color to play a criminal?
A: He didn't have to. However, what he dresses as doesn't reflect his beliefs, it's halloween. EX. I dress as a zombie, and I ues a prop of a brain. I'm not saying "zombies kill people and eat brains" just like he isn't saying "blacks are criminal." It's just a fvcking costume on halloween.

Still waiting on the answers to my Q.

I believe I answered your question. He is a white judge, so changing his skin color was not needed to "play" his character. Secondly, a zombie, satan, or a demon are mythical or fictional characters, and part of Halloween is drawing ire to their grotesqueness and lifestyle. I'm sorry, but I have a problem with mocking a black person, or trying to draw ire to them by display of blackface on a white man. That is trying to insult them, or at the very least being a naive boob.

I'm not an English major either, but I don't make up words or supposed logical boundaries.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill
I'd also like some proof that the judge was found not to be racially biased by his colleagues. Two claims you just made without any proof.

"The justices agreed Ellender did not mean to insult blacks. Nevertheless, they ordered him to take a sociology course "which will assist him in achieving a greater understanding of racial sensitivity."

The judges did the right thing. There was no proof of bias, but there was a raise of concern, which is why he's going to a course.

Umm, I'm sorry, but that doesn't equate "was not found to be racially biased by his colleagues." They agreed that he didn't intend to insult blacks, and not that he wasn't racially biased. paulney made a completely different claim than what the judges actually said.

If they found bias, then the above statement woudn't be correct, because he would have intended insult. We can only go off of what's here, we aren't in a Q&A session with the judges. What we see here is the justices don't think he was meant to insult people.

Where is your proof he WAS biased? You don't prove negatives.

The problem with your logic, is that it presupposes that they were trying his entire life instead of this one incident. On this one incident they found he did not mean to insult blacks. However, that is not a blanket pardon to anything else he has done or will do in the future.

I never said the judge was out and out biased. I said his appearance and act gave credence to those who would make such claims. Any appearance of impropriety in a judicial setting is just as bad as actually acting improper. It is why judges are held to higher standards of conduct and ethics. I'm sorry you don't understand basic things such as integrity, bias, and how the judicial system is a social contract.

 

[captains]

HAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn
going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

And dressing as the devil or a zombie is satanic. Right. Gotcha.

those are fictional characters. Black people are real people with real feelings in case you didn't already know

Satan worshipers are real, it's also a negative connotation like a "black" criminal. 😕

 

[dabuddha]

What a crock of sh!t

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn
going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

And dressing as the devil or a zombie is satanic. Right. Gotcha.

those are fictional characters. Black people are real people with real feelings in case you didn't already know

Satan worshipers are real, it's also a negative connotation like a "black" criminal. 😕

Good luck getting anyone over the age of 6 to believe the two are equitable.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Mill
The problem with your logic, is that it presupposes that they were trying his entire life instead of this one incident. On this one incident they found he did not mean to insult blacks. However, that is not a blanket pardon to anything else he has done or will do in the future.

I only posted that in this case he was not trying to be racist. Do you have further info? If not, we can kinda drop that one. I don't have his life history in front of me, nor am I trying to defend his beliefs based on one act. I'm trying to say one act isn't a blanket for his other actions. We can agree here. If he's biased it's because of OTHER actions.

Originally posted by: Mill
I never said the judge was out and out biased.

No, you said something VERY close to it.

Originally posted by: Mill
I would think dressing up in Black Face would give lots of ammunition toward proving a bias.

[/i]
I agree it shows he might be, but isn't prood alone. Again we can agree here.

Originally posted by: Mill
I said his appearance and act gave credence to those who would make such claims. Any appearance of impropriety in a judicial setting is just as bad as actually acting improper. It is why judges are held to higher standards of conduct and ethics.

[/i]Again I agree. So do you think the appearance of impropriety alone should equate to punishment? Because that's what I'm reading. He wasn't biased, just gave the appearance, and was punished for that. I don't agree he should have been punished to the degree he was for the APPEARANCE of bias alone. Actual bias, sure throw the book at them.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mill
The problem with your logic, is that it presupposes that they were trying his entire life instead of this one incident. On this one incident they found he did not mean to insult blacks. However, that is not a blanket pardon to anything else he has done or will do in the future.

I only posted that in this case he was not trying to be racist. Do you have further info? If not, we can kinda drop that one. I don't have his life history in front of me, nor am I trying to defend his beliefs based on one act. I'm trying to say one act isn't a blanket for his other actions. We can agree here. If he's biased it's because of OTHER actions.

Originally posted by: Mill
I never said the judge was out and out biased.

No, you said something VERY close to it.

Originally posted by: Mill
I would think dressing up in Black Face would give lots of ammunition toward proving a bias.

[/i]
I agree it shows he might be, but isn't prood alone. Again we can agree here.

Originally posted by: Mill
I said his appearance and act gave credence to those who would make such claims. Any appearance of impropriety in a judicial setting is just as bad as actually acting improper. It is why judges are held to higher standards of conduct and ethics.

[/i]Again I agree. So do you think the appearance of impropriety alone should equate to punishment? Because that's what I'm reading. He wasn't biased, just gave the appearance, and was punished for that. I don't agree he should have been punished to the degree he was for the APPEARANCE of bias alone. Actual bias, sure throw the book at them.

Yes, for the appearance of bias in THIS case he should've been punished how he was. He agreed to those higher standards and it VIOLATED the judicial canon's of LA State law. That's the end of it.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: rickn
going blackface is ok for theatrics, but for halloween, it's just racist. he could have just as easily went as Hamburglar

And dressing as the devil or a zombie is satanic. Right. Gotcha.

those are fictional characters. Black people are real people with real feelings in case you didn't already know

Satan worshipers are real, it's also a negative connotation like a "black" criminal. 😕

Good luck getting anyone over the age of 6 to believe the two are equitable.

Thank you for proving my point.

Now why is it that people over the age of 6 ARE trying to equate the two. A child of 6 would understand that someone dressed as satan ISN'T a devil worshiper no more than a person who looks black and is a criminal is saying blacks are criminals.

/thread.