Moral Dilemma: Should I Turn This Guy In?

[TC Shuts Up]

The story you are about to read is true. Only a few details have been redacted (name, firm where he works, exact year, etc.) to put this forward as a moral dilemma.

A person who I knew in Elementary school, who is now a broker for a major firm, went out for Halloween in Black Face in the mid 1960s. Should I turn him in?

Would it make a difference to you if he was a Democrat? Republican? Lost a lot of your investment funds? What if I have pictures?

[Honeyman]

You are losing more of your grasp of reality daily. I urge you to seek professional help.

[TC Shuts Up]

You are losing more of your grasp of reality daily. I urge you to seek professional help.

"In all the time I've known you, I still don't know what you mean."

The four years you spent in college didn't give you a "lick of sense. Pass the biscuits please."

[Turkeytop]

The story you are about to read is true. Only a few details have been redacted (name, firm where he works, exact year, etc.) to put this forward as a moral dilemma.

A person who I knew in Elementary school, who is now a broker for a major firm, went out for Halloween in Black Face in the mid 1960s. Should I turn him in?

Would it make a difference to you if he was a Democrat? Republican? Lost a lot of your investment funds? What if I have pictures?

By all means, turn him in.

To who?

[TC Shuts Up]

Who do you think I'd turn them in to, along with some other people who give me a hard time?

[Turkeytop]

Who do you think I'd turn them in to, along with some other people who give me a hard time?

If I had any idea who you could turn him in to, I wouldn't have asked. Be patient with me. I'm just a simple working class guy. I don't get out much.

[Honeyman]

Who do you think I'd turn them in to, along with some other people who give me a hard time?

If I had any idea who you could turn him in to, I wouldn't have asked. Be patient with me. I'm just a working class guy. I don't get out much.

He's turning him to that guy over there. Right there! What do you mean you don't see him?!? He's standing right next to the unicorn and the talking orangutan!

[Turkeytop]

Who do you think I'd turn them in to, along with some other people who give me a hard time?

If I had any idea who you could turn him in to, I wouldn't have asked. Be patient with me. I'm just a working class guy. I don't get out much.

He's turning him to that guy over there. Right there! What do you mean you don't see him?!? He's standing right next to the unicorn and the talking orangutan!

Oh. He means his invisible friend.

[Honeyman]

Who do you think I'd turn them in to, along with some other people who give me a hard time?

If I had any idea who you could turn him in to, I wouldn't have asked. Be patient with me. I'm just a working class guy. I don't get out much.

He's turning him to that guy over there. Right there! What do you mean you don't see him?!? He's standing right next to the unicorn and the talking orangutan!

Oh. You mean his invisible friend.

He's only invisible if you don't see him.

[Lester The Nightfly]

What you're proposing is little different than doxing, which is an unacceptable practice. That said, IF something should transpire publicly where someone is adversely affected by a racist action by the broker i.e. some law is broken, then, in my humblest of opinions, you would have something of a duty to present whatever evidence you possess.

I guess the example would be if there were some credible narrative being circulated that impacted the the firm's reputation and you as a client then I would think you'd have standing to contact the firm. If there was a criminal investigation by police, then yes. I'd also say if the person was running for a political position of public trust then all bets are off.

All of that said, given the general acceptance of emboldened racist behavior especially over the past four years, don't be too surprised if you're greeted with a shrug over something that happened five decades ago.

[TC Shuts Up]

If it is the truth, then truth is the defense against libel and slander charges. Hard to prove 50+ year old charges, one would have to agree. Statute of limitations generally is three years. Yet these kind of accusations seem to last forever in today's crazy climate. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. One can make it work in these cases no matter who makes the accusations. Right or Left. I remember when rape charges were made against a former Democrat sitting President. Their response was not to deny that it happened, it was "well, the statute of limitations has run out on that one". Weasel words.

[Lester The Nightfly]

If it is the truth, then truth is the defense against libel and slander charges. Hard to prove 50+ year old charges, one would have to agree. Statute of limitations generally is three years. Yet these kind of accusations seem to last forever in today's crazy climate. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. One can make it work in these cases no matter who makes the accusations. Right or Left. I remember when rape charges were made against a former Democrat sitting President. Their response was not to deny that it happened, it was "well, the statute of limitations has run out on that one". Weasel words.

Forget what I said. I was under the false impression you where interested in, to some measure, a reasonable exploration of a plausible situation. Instead you just wanted an opportunity to spout off some witless horseshit.

Back to our regular programming...

[Honeyman]

If it is the truth, then truth is the defense against libel and slander charges. Hard to prove 50+ year old charges, one would have to agree. Statute of limitations generally is three years. Yet these kind of accusations seem to last forever in today's crazy climate. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. One can make it work in these cases no matter who makes the accusations. Right or Left. I remember when rape charges were made against a former Democrat sitting President. Their response was not to deny that it happened, it was "well, the statute of limitations has run out on that one". Weasel words.

Forget what I said. I was under the false impression you where interested in, to some measure, a reasonable exploration of a plausible situation. Instead you just wanted an opportunity to spout off some witless horseshit.

Back to our regular programming...

All of his posts are "witless horseshit". Honestly, he should change his username to Witless Horseshit.

Though I am surprised YOU didn't mention anything about his comment, "In all the time I've known you, I still don't know what you mean."

[Robert Faygo]

If this happened while you were both in elementary school in the 1960s, the only moral dilemma here is why you would even think of bringing up something like this in an attempt to embarrass him from something that happened when you were both kids.

If you were both adults in the mid-1960s, that means you are both in your mid-70s now, which seems extremely unlikely.

I strongly suspect the person with questionable morals in your little scenario above is actually you.

[audiophile]

No, the whole black face thing was was another "cancel culture" stunt.