(April 25, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:(April 25, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Yonadav Wrote: The articles that I read about that face said that it was derived from the skull of a first century Judean man. It wasn't described as the face of Jesus. It's just the face of a first century Judean man. As a 20th/21st century Judean man, I'm a little offended at him using the face of a first century Judean man as an intentionally offensive form of blackface. I'm an old school liberal, and one of the things that I don't like about many modern liberals is that they think that it is OK to be intentionally offensive as long as they don't offend members of 'protected' groups. Fake is one of those guys who won't stop offending someone who tells him that he is offending them-- unless they have some sort of protected status. He'll get up on his moral high horse when a woman says that something is offensive, because when a woman says that it is offensive, then it's offensive. Ditto black people and gay people. It's offensive if they say it is offensive, and Fake will be their champion every time. But if I tell him that his Judean Blackface shtick is a bit offensive, he will ridicule me and continue to do it. That ain't liberal, man.
I'm not saying that he should change his avatar. I sort of like it that he is so oblivious to his hypocrisy.
Fine words from a guy whose signature is "Alleged misogynist. Suspected Racist. Don't Care."
If the accusations weren't mindless, I would care.
We do not inherit the world from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
