# WV black lawmaker gets email with KKK graphic and anti-abortion message...also sues. Is this right?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wv-black-lawmaker-gets-email-with-kkk-graphic-and-anti-abortion-message-also-sues-is-this-right/959845>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 21, 2022, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wv-black-lawmaker-gets-email-with-kkk-graphic-and-anti-abortion-message-also-sues-is-this-right/959845 "2022-02-21T00:09:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 53

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2022, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wv-black-lawmaker-gets-email-with-kkk-graphic-and-anti-abortion-message-also-sues-is-this-right/959845/53 "2022-03-01T22:26:14Z")

</div>

> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> > [@Max\_S](#):
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> > [@Max\_S](#):
> >
> > a history of perpetrating / sympathizing with racially motivated violence.
> 
> Not irrelevant.

The latter quotation was in respect to actions taken by the same individual (or organization); that is, such history is _individualized_. The former quotation referred to actions taken by _other members of a race_; in other words, the history is _racial_. It is reasonable to use an individual’s history to conclude he is acting in bad faith. It is unreasonable to use the history of a person’s race to conclude he is acting in bad faith. To do so would be to discriminate against them on the basis of race.

So on the one hand, if the race of White people have a history of racially-motivated violence against Black people, it would be unjust to take that into account when determining if a White individual’s violence against a Black individual was racially motivated.

On the other hand, if a juror _believes_ Black people have a history of dealing drugs, it would be unjust to take that into account when determining whether a Black individual is a drug dealer or merely a consumer.

> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> No, the context is that she’s a Black woman receiving KKK imagery.

The captions above and below the image are part of the context. I’m not going to budge on that. The article describes the words as part of the graphic itself - I’m imagining it’s your standard meme caption, like this:

[![](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7yYZtRB4jIeG_517GXEcycJ2C3U=/0x0:735x500/1200x800/filters:focal(310x192:426x308)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66727168/image.0.png) ](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7yYZtRB4jIeG_517GXEcycJ2C3U=/0x0:735x500/1200x800/filters:focal(310x192:426x308)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66727168/image.0.png)

> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> > [@Max\_S](#):
> >
> > if it isn’t racist or derogatory, it cannot be a piccaninny
> 
> That’s some ridiculous denying the antecedent going on, there.

It follows from the premise that all piccaninny caricatures are racist or derogatory, which is another way of saying racism is an essential, an _inherent_ element of picanninny caricatures.

~Max

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wv-black-lawmaker-gets-email-with-kkk-graphic-and-anti-abortion-message-also-sues-is-this-right/959845)._