Quote# 122880

Residents of Roseville, Michigan are outraged over Roseville School Board Vice President Alfredo Francesconi’s racist posts on his personal Facebook page, Click on Detroit writes.

According to the report, Francesconi shared posts on his Facebook describing all Muslims as terrorists and also reportedly called out black Americans for not voting in the 2016 election.

Francesconi said he shared the posts because he agreed with their content. However, a Roseville resident named Sarah Belemonte said that just because he agrees with the posts doesn’t mean that he should share them, adding that it’s bad enough that he agrees with them at all.

Local ABC affiliate WXYZ reports this is not the first time that Francesconi has been accused of making racist remarks on his Facebook, noting that former students and parents shared some of his messages with the board a few weeks back.

One of his posts reportedly read, “No I’m not going to kill the gays, make slavery legal, and take away women’s rights. I’m not a Muslim.”

The outlet also said that news reporter Gino Vicci spoke with Francesconi over the phone about the posts. The board vice president said that the posts were not offensive and he would post them again.

Residents held a protest outside of Monday night’s board meeting and demanded that Francesconi resign or be removed from the board. Three counter-protesters also showed up on his behalf.

However, they didn’t necessarily agree with his opinions so much as they felt he should have the right to share them. “What I am for is freedom of speech,” said resident Evelena Scott. “At what point do feelings trump someone’s opinions?”

Alfredo Francesconi, Raw Story 21 Comments [12/6/2016 2:00:01 PM]
Fundie Index: -5
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


“At what point do feelings trump someone’s opinions?”

Oh, I dunno, immediately? What the fuck is up with the far right's obsessive hatred of emotion?

12/6/2016 2:53:47 PM


Eh. I can see the counter-protesters' point, and I'm generally of the opinion that people don't have a right to not ever be offended.

But on the other hand, this guy has a position of authority and power, where his prejudices could result in harm to others, so I'm ultimately on the side of those calling for his resignation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

12/6/2016 4:36:43 PM


It's better that he should be allowed to share these things and show his true colours. Then everyone can see him for who he truly is.

12/6/2016 4:49:29 PM



On the other hand, I feel like the corrolary to "people don't have a right to not ever be offended" is that "people have the right to be offended".

And as we are social animals, offending people has consequences - including getting fired from your job, especially if you are in a position of authority and hold some legitimately awful beliefs.

Nor should the phrase "you don't have the right to not be offended" be used as a blanket defense for being offensive, especially needlessly offensive. Responsibility goes both ways, and people who go out of their way to be offensive are, in my opinion, a worse problem than people who go out of their way to be offended.

In the end, though, I feel like we're in agreement.

12/6/2016 5:27:52 PM



Oh, I agree. People who go out of their way to be offensive are definitely more of a problem; I'm not trying to defend them. You're right that humans are social animals, and that necessitates basic civility.

But I also believe that how you deal with offensive douchebags is important too. Personally, I'm of the opinion that being offended is a choice, where the person so offended could just as easily have chosen to react with pity for the douchebag in question's ignorance, or amused contempt for their idiotic opinions. Getting offended just lets them know that you're taking them seriously and that their opinion has weight, which is what they want.

That's what I mean I say that people don't have a right to not be offended. But then again, I'm a half-Punjabi who can pass for an all-white person in Canada, so I haven't had to deal with much explicit racism directed specifically my way. I do wonder whether or not I'd have a different opinion if I was, say, a black person in America.

12/6/2016 7:53:32 PM


You might have a different opinion, you might not. No use spending too much time on that sort of "what-if".

And... I disagree. Being offended isn't a choice. It's a natural emotional state in reaction to something that is anathema to you or your values.

It's what you do after being offended that matters. Silence is an acceptable reaction. A well-researched counterargument is also an acceptable reaction. So is... taking a soothing bath and just letting it slip out of your mind.

That being said, I also find things like "You shouldn't say that" to be a reasonable response to someone saying racist things. It's not censorship to ask or even demand that someone to shut up. It IS censorship to put duct tape over their mouth.

12/7/2016 1:22:56 AM


Not racist. And what he said about Moohamadans regarding women's rights, social liberties (e.g. gays), slavery is absolutely true. That's what their scriptures call for and that's what they practice anywhere and everywhere they can.

12/7/2016 6:25:49 AM

Doubting Thomas

“What I am for is freedom of speech,” said resident Evelena Scott.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want whenever you want without repercussions. It only means that the government can't limit speech it disagrees with. If you publicly badmouth your employer or say things they disagree with then they have every right to reprimand you or remove you from your job.

Jeez I wish more people understood this.

12/7/2016 7:53:57 AM


At what point does saying you're an inferior subhuman inbred retard hurt your fee-fees, Alf...?!

...or until someone calls you a 'Greaseball Wop'?

12/7/2016 9:46:22 AM

Demon Duck of Doom


"If you [...] say things [your employer's] disagree with then they have every right to reprimand you or remove you from your job."

Under most circumstances (government officials being an exception), there is literally no good reason emoloyers should be allowed to fire employees for saying something they disagree with while not on company time. All that is is a sign of corporations having too much power over the workers.

12/7/2016 12:08:36 PM



Maybe not, but whether we like it or not, as much as we like to believe that our opinions and beliefs are entirely our own, a significant proportion of them are influenced by our environment and circumstances and plain old accident of birth. It always bears consideration in order to distill a more honest and pure opinion, I believe.

But regardless, well *shrugs* I guess we have different opinions when it comes to taking offense then, which is fine. I do agree though that what comes after the taking offence part is more important. Like I said, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, and yes, angrily demanding that the offending individual shut the hell up is well within the rights of the offended party.

What those consequences are, though, should depend on the circumstances, and I don't believe that being offended, in and of itself, is enough to warrant a response. "I'm offended!" on its own is not an argument and isn't worth addressing. It's WHY something is offensive that's important. Fundie Christians get offended if one says "Happy Holidays" this time of year instead of "Merry Christmas" for example, but I'm not going to alter my behaviour if I happen offend one of them.

Getting back to the quote, this guy's offensive because he holds a large number of individuals in contempt because of the actions of a few, and has a position of power that lets him leverage his prejudice to harm others (namely, Muslim students in his school district), so I'm on the side of those calling for his resignation. If he had a different job that didn't involve customer service or grant him authority over others (as a construction worker, say), then I'd be on the side of the counter-protesters in this quote. Circumstances matter.

12/7/2016 1:20:19 PM

Seems the votes don't match your narrative. JUST LIKE THE ELECTION, oh shit.

12/7/2016 3:49:11 PM


I'm actually not upset at all that he expressed himself. Thank you for exposing who you really are. Now please find another line of work. Bigots should not be in positions of political authority at any level, especially when it comes to educating our children.

12/7/2016 8:26:18 PM


“At what point do feelings trump someone’s opinions?”

At the point where a person who is supposed to serve our diverse public makes the statement "All X people are Y."

12/8/2016 10:57:54 AM

Kek's Prophet, Pepe.

Now that Trump has won the election, your screeching rhetoric turned to normal again.


12/8/2016 11:53:28 PM

Kek's Prophet, Pepe.


>Fundie Christians get offended if one says "Happy Holidays" this time of year instead of "Merry Christmas" for example, but I'm not going to alter my behaviour if I happen offend one of them.

Because they are no longer like muslims. Try doing it to a muslim, claim Allah was a moon god and Ramadan was Sabean pagan rites.

It's SO easy when your enemy is weakened.

12/9/2016 1:10:35 AM

Demon Duck of Doom

@Frogfucker: Weren't you banned?

12/9/2016 2:41:42 AM


@Atrocious Amphibian

Echoing DDoD here. Wasn't your frog ass kicked out after we had a change of overlords?

12/9/2016 8:23:34 AM



Except he didn't say "X people". He said along the lines of "people subscribing to X ideology". Like the fact that all Klansmen are racist. By their own creed. All Communists are anti-liberal. By their own creed. All Mooslims are terrorists. By their own creed.

And if someone doesn't like what he's got to say, that's their own problem. They can vote for someone else in the next elections.

12/9/2016 10:40:44 AM



There's nothing in the Muslim creed that says they're required to be terrorists. Fail.

12/9/2016 11:10:44 AM



"They can vote for someone else in the next elections."

So many Londoners - who are mainly white - voted for Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London; I refer you to what former mayor Boris 'Bozo The Clown' Johnson has said of late. Then you wonder why the Conservative candidate didn't win?

Sadiq Khan is a Muslim. He has power over the Metropolitan Police; Scotland Yard, and their Anti-Terror section. They have backup by MI6 & the supercomputers at GCHQ.

Why does he continue to give them free rein over the investigation, intelligence gathering, arrest & jailing of Muslim terrorists in the UK - certainly sharing of intel. to the FBI, CIA, NSA, Interpol & Mossad - if 'All Mooslims are terrorists. By their own creed.'?

By your own words is your 'creed' - certainly your unjustifiable way of thinking - proved wrong.

Spring Bank here in Hull: the main Muslim immigrant district here. The last crime committed there - a woman having her handbag snatched - was by a white man. The only things happening at the nearby KCOM Stadium are Rugby League matches with Hull FC, and Football games with Hull City and not public beheadings of 'infidels'.

The curious lack of planes sticking out of our World Trade Centre.

And why the only incidents of terrorism here in Hull were three bomb warnings decades ago, responsibility for which were claimed by the white IRA: mainly funded by white Americans; curious how these terrorists basically became an irrelevance when Americans experienced terrorism on their own soil a decade or so ago.

Even more curious: so many Americans had no concern for 'Mooslims' up to just after 10th September 2001.

Muslims have existed in the US since the mid-19th Century.

Timothy McVeigh. Eric Robert Rudolph. Scott Roeder. Anders Breivik. US Militias. Vanilla ISIS. Therefore all white rightists are terrorists. No Exceptions. Including you, bobby-boy. By your own logic.

Broad Brushes. Fun to use, especially against those not exactly like you. Not so fun when they're being used on you.

12/10/2016 12:55:46 AM

1 | top: comments page