Student raises £11,000 through crowdfunding after parents 'cut her off because she has a black boyfriend

First topic message reminder :

Student raises £11,000 through crowdfunding after parents 'cut her off because she has a black boyfriend

Allie Dowdle, 18, says her dad Bill told her she was never allowed to see Michael Swift again after she showed her father a photo of her new fella





A student has raised £11,000 through crowdfunding after claiming her parents cut her off after discovering she had a black boyfriend.

Allie Dowdle, 18, says her dad Bill told her she was never allowed to see Michael Swift again after she showed her father a photo of her new fella.

She writes on her GoFundMe page : "About a year ago, I told my parents that I'd started dating a boy named Michael, pictured with me above.

"Hoping to share him with my family, I showed my parents his picture, and the conversation was over before it even began.

"My dad did not give me an option: he told me that I was not allowed to see Michael ever again.

"Why? Strictly because of skin color. It wasn't a quiet 'no' either. I'll never forget the yelling my parents did, when they expressed how disappointed they were in me, that I could do so much better."

The teenager , from Memphis, Tennessee, said after the blazing row, she was blocked from using her personal savings and no longer had access to her car or phone, leaving her penniless and unable to continue her education.

She wrote: "As I am 18, my parents have chosen to no longer support my future, stripping me of all my resources."

Allie has already smashed her $10,000 target, with her running total at around $14,000 (approximately £11,470).

The 18-year-old's dad has denied that the issue is about race.

Bill Dowdle insists he and his wife will accept any young man that their daughter choses to date, and only cut her off because she started dating Michael in secret.

But he admitted there were 'issues' involved with 'bi-racial dating' in the southern states of America.

He told the New York Daily News : "[She's spoiled] and it became obvious that she needed to go out in the world and grow up."

But Allie, in her plea for cash to cover her tuition fees, posted: "I did not know what to do. I couldn't comprehend how someone could be seen as less because of pigment. I still can't comprehend it, and I never will be able to.

"How could my love for another person be wrong because of his skin colour?

"And why would that make me unworthy of a future I've worked so hard for?

"Because my parents have listed me, their own daughter, as someone who is not worthy of their time and money, I have turned to the public for support."

But some, commenting on her GoFundMe page, hit out at her appeal for money.

Susan Martin wrote: "Dating a black man and sending a privileged white girl to college who can't get a job because her parents took away her car is absolutely ridiculous. Take a bus."

Meanwhile Marissa Kizer wrote: "Sending a white girl from a middle-class family to college is not fighting racism. In fact, expecting to avoid work, student loans, etc. and be treated like a hero for dating a black guy seems pretty racist to me."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/student-raises-11000-through-crowdfunding-9617483

The father is a complete areshole! What he did was bloody horrible and he couldn't even own his opinion and had to spin some waffle about "secret dating" .

Raggamuffin wrote:Look, nobody is going to do anything about Wolfman, so forget it.

True. Who cares about another keyboard warrior anyway?

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

You may threaten someone if you feel that they have upset you enough.

_________________

How is that helping?

I could say the following.

"You may say people of mixed relationships are basically inferior and that people should never date black people!

Nobody is saying either is acceptable.

One is an opinion the other is a threat.

If you don't shut up I'm going to find you and kick your fucking stupid geranium teeth down your throat.
That is not a threat, that's a promise!

You may threaten someone if you feel that they have upset you enough.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Banned?  For opposing racism?  Major may speak in paler hues, but what he is saying is 'them black bastards gotta stay away from our pretty blond princesses'.

Why?  

'Well,' says Maj, 'because white men like me may get all riled up, grab our sheets and rifles, and go a-hunting for 'em.  See how them salt & pepper relationships lead to no good?  Why...I can't hep myself...I get so mad at them black boys all wantin' to fuk ahr wimmen.  Course it leads to no good...half-breed babies an all!'

A message you can be proud of, eh?   See...opposing racism can lead to bad ways.  Bad habits.

So we ought to ban those who oppose racists, so as we might live comfortably among our racist pals and gals...  

Bollocks.
You can oppose racism without threatening violence.
He broke Bens rules. End of
Anyway keep going and we shall have tantrum 2 the revenge and Ben will take his ball home again.

And you are ensuring that is happening
This has nothing to do with either of us
I am trying to calm the moment, and you and Quill are making it worse
I also did not see you oppose the racist views of Major?
You rightly oppose Wolf's violent views, but not racist views.
That is what is wrong with your views.

Now I suggest everyone mind their own business and if they do not like, either leave or carry on debating

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How is that helping?

I could say the following.

"You may say people of mixed relationships are basically inferior and that people should never date black people!

Nobody is saying either is acceptable.

One is an opinion the other is a threat.

If you don't shut up I'm going to find you and kick your fucking stupid geranium teeth down your throat.
That is not a threat, that's a promise!

How does that make either acceptable?

It does not, unless you saying racism is acceptable?

You see this is what is wrong, its not okay to threaten someone, but its okay to be racially, hateful of people.

Please explain that to me?

Thorin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Bollocks.
You can oppose racism without threatening violence.
He broke Bens rules. End of
Anyway keep going and we shall have tantrum 2 the revenge and Ben will take his ball home again.

And you are ensuring that is happening
This has nothing to do with either of us
I am trying to calm the moment, and you and Quill are making it worse
I also did not see you oppose the racist views of Major?
You rightly oppose Wolf's violent views, but not racist views.
That is what is wrong with your views.

Now I suggest everyone mind their own business and if they do not like, either leave or carry on debating

Why what you going to do about it?
I know you are excited to be back here but don't over egg it.

Major is entitled to his opinion Wolfie is not entitled to threaten him with violence
Even you must understand the difference?
Or perhaps not actually

Miffs2 wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And you are ensuring that is happening
This has nothing to do with either of us
I am trying to calm the moment, and you and Quill are making it worse
I also did not see you oppose the racist views of Major?
You rightly oppose Wolf's violent views, but not racist views.
That is what is wrong with your views.

Now I suggest everyone mind their own business and if they do not like, either leave or carry on debating

Why what you going to do about it?
I know you are excited to be back here but don't over egg it.

Major is entitled to his opinion Wolfie is not entitled to threaten him with violence
Even you must understand the difference?
Or perhaps not actually

Major was being racist towards black people and mixed relationships
How is he entitled to be racist and hateful?
You are normalizing racism, by saying he is entitled to say
He is not entitled to say, he is entitled to have such an opinion, but not to express it, as its hate speech

So you tell me the difference, or would you like a lesson on where such hate has led to?
Shall we start with 11 million people murdered in WW2?

I have condemned wolf for his views, you though are excusing racist views
I condemn both, you excuse one, because you are not interested in what is wrong, but to gang up on someone, because your motive is dislike to the poster.
Both should have their knuckles wrapped, nothing more

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

One is an opinion the other is a threat.

If you don't shut up I'm going to find you and kick your fucking stupid geranium teeth down your throat.
That is not a threat, that's a promise!

How does that make either acceptable?

It does not, unless you saying racism is acceptable?

You see this is what is wrong, its not okay to threaten someone, but its okay to be racially, hateful of people.

Please explain that to me?

Didge hits the nail right on the head. Both threats and racism are wrongs, and how anyone weighs one or the other more evil is beyond me.

On the one hand, you can say racism is just an opinion. I would respond, do you really think that someone from Oz is able to carry out a threat? So, both are just abstract expressions of passionately felt wrongs.

But one starts it, and the other is just an angry response. I would think that gratuitous evil is worse.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How does that make either acceptable?

It does not, unless you saying racism is acceptable?

You see this is what is wrong, its not okay to threaten someone, but its okay to be racially, hateful of people.

Please explain that to me?

Didge hits the nail right on the head.  Both threats and racism are wrongs, and how anyone weighs one or the other more evil is beyond me.  

On the one hand, you can say racism is just an opinion.  I would respond, do you really think that someone from Oz is able to carry out a threat?  So, both are just abstract expressions of passionately felt wrongs.

But one starts it, and the other is just an angry response.  I would think that gratuitous evil is worse.

Angry response?!
Ranting of a thug.
The sort of thug who hides behind a forum ID to behave as he would not dare face to face
You are nothing more than an enabler

That's fine then. Subject closed.
We now know that it's okay, according to some, to threaten violence.

But not when Major said "hang 'em high" - that type of violent threat is NOT acceptable becasue it's different....somehow....

The rules are bendy, changeable and misty. We aren't always sure what's a threat and what is not. We aren't sure what is acceptable and what is not.
Clear as mud.
Now we know.
That's all there is to say.

eddie wrote:That's fine then. Subject closed.
We now know that it's okay according to some, to threaten violence.

But not when Major said "hang 'em high" - that type of violent threat is NOT acceptable becasue it's different.

The rules are bendy, changeable and misty. We aren't always sure what's a threat and what is not. We aren't sure what is acceptable and what is not.
Clear as mud.
Now we know.
That's all there is to say.

That's it in one

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge hits the nail right on the head.  Both threats and racism are wrongs, and how anyone weighs one or the other more evil is beyond me.  

On the one hand, you can say racism is just an opinion.  I would respond, do you really think that someone from Oz is able to carry out a threat?  So, both are just abstract expressions of passionately felt wrongs.

But one starts it, and the other is just an angry response.  I would think that gratuitous evil is worse.

Angry response?!
Ranting of a thug.
The sort of thug who hides behind a forum ID to behave as he would not dare face to face
You are nothing more than an enabler

What do you think you are?  You are the cheering squad for George Zimmerman.  Do you not think your support has an effect in the real world?

eddie wrote:That's fine then. Subject closed.
We now know that it's okay, according to some, to threaten violence.

But not when Major said "hang 'em high" - that type of violent threat is NOT acceptable becasue it's different....somehow....

The rules are bendy, changeable and misty. We aren't always sure what's a threat and what is not. We aren't sure what is acceptable and what is not.
Clear as mud.
Now we know.
That's all there is to say.

And...we all know that racism and racists have a safe haven in NewsFix. You are for your cause as much as Ben is for anti-racism.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Angry response?!
Ranting of a thug.
The sort of thug who hides behind a forum ID to behave as he would not dare face to face
You are nothing more than an enabler

What do you think you are?  You are the cheering squad for George Zimmerman.  Do you not think your support has an effect in the real world?

Well. I suppose we should all be grateful you didn't mention the bloody Nazis

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge hits the nail right on the head.  Both threats and racism are wrongs, and how anyone weighs one or the other more evil is beyond me.  

On the one hand, you can say racism is just an opinion.  I would respond, do you really think that someone from Oz is able to carry out a threat?  So, both are just abstract expressions of passionately felt wrongs.

But one starts it, and the other is just an angry response.  I would think that gratuitous evil is worse.

Angry response?!
Ranting of a thug.
The sort of thug who hides behind a forum ID to behave as he would not dare face to face
You are nothing more than an enabler

Emotive reasoning, as then if its the rantings of a thug, what does that make the racist?
At every turn you ignore the racism and normalize this as if its acceptable
Neither views expressed are acceptable.
And in exactly what way were you offended here?
At the poster upset over racist views, who offers violence towards the racist?
Ignoring the racism
Again both are wrong
Both should be condemned
You though center on the threat and not the hate speech

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:That's fine then. Subject closed.
We now know that it's okay, according to some, to threaten violence.

But not when Major said "hang 'em high" - that type of violent threat is NOT acceptable becasue it's different....somehow....

The rules are bendy, changeable and misty. We aren't always sure what's a threat and what is not. We aren't sure what is acceptable and what is not.
Clear as mud.
Now we know.
That's all there is to say.

And...we all know that racism and racists have a safe haven in NewsFix.

You bash those keys !

eddie wrote:That's fine then. Subject closed.
We now know that it's okay, according to some, to threaten violence.

But not when Major said "hang 'em high" - that type of violent threat is NOT acceptable becasue it's different....somehow....

The rules are bendy, changeable and misty. We aren't always sure what's a threat and what is not. We aren't sure what is acceptable and what is not.
Clear as mud.
Now we know.
That's all there is to say.

Nobody has said its okay to threaten anyone
Its also not okay to be racist
So why again are you excusing one of two rule breaks here?
Both are wrong.
People think its okay to express racist views.
I tell you what, each of you go to your children's schools or your work place and express the same views Major did and let me know if you still have a job at the end of the week?
Its okay to hold racist views, as they are your own views. Once you express racist views, its not okay

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Angry response?!
Ranting of a thug.
The sort of thug who hides behind a forum ID to behave as he would not dare face to face
You are nothing more than an enabler

What do you think you are?  You are the cheering squad for George Zimmerman.  Do you not think your support has an effect in the real world?

Don't start all that again. George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a court of law.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And...we all know that racism and racists have a safe haven in NewsFix.

You bash those keys !

I have an old Dell keyboard...gotta treat it with care.

When you give aid and comfort for the opinions of racism, somewhere and sometime there is someone who reads those words, and like Dylann Roof, goes and acts on them and we end up with 9 dead church ladies. I can't say the same for the actions of Wolf...I can't imagine they would do anything except tell us he is pissed...frankly, a lesser evil.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you think you are?  You are the cheering squad for George Zimmerman.  Do you not think your support has an effect in the real world?

Don't start all that again. George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a court of law.

So you are saying there has never been a travesty of justice?

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

You bash those keys !

I have an old Dell keyboard...gotta treat it with care.

When you give aid and comfort for the opinions of racism, somewhere and sometime there is someone who reads those words, and like Dylann Roof, goes and acts on them and we end up with 9 dead church ladies.  I can't say the same for the actions of Wolf...I can't imagine they would do anything except tell us he is pissed...frankly, a lesser evil.

Know what worries me?
You believe the shit you just posted.
Your own bias is invisible to you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you think you are?  You are the cheering squad for George Zimmerman.  Do you not think your support has an effect in the real world?

Don't start all that again. George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a court of law.

By a racist jury, most likely spurred on by yours, or someones, support of an act of racism. That's the evil of a bigoted ideology...it spreads to others.

George Zimmerman led to Dylann Roof, and the beat goes on, and on, and on...

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't start all that again. George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a court of law.

So you are saying there has never been a travesty of justice?

No, but I watched the trial and agreed with the evidence.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have an old Dell keyboard...gotta treat it with care.

When you give aid and comfort for the opinions of racism, somewhere and sometime there is someone who reads those words, and like Dylann Roof, goes and acts on them and we end up with 9 dead church ladies.  I can't say the same for the actions of Wolf...I can't imagine they would do anything except tell us he is pissed...frankly, a lesser evil.

Know what worries me?
You believe the shit you just posted.
Your own bias is invisible to you.

The shit I post favors peace and humanism.

What you post gives encouragement to evil-doers.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't start all that again. George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a court of law.

By a racist jury, most likely spurred on by yours, or someones, support of an act of racism.  That's the evil of a bigoted ideology...it spreads to others.

George Zimmerman led to Dylann Roof, and the beat goes on, and on, and on...

No, by a jury who saw the evidence that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder. Perhaps you're racist against Hispanic people.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have an old Dell keyboard...gotta treat it with care.

When you give aid and comfort for the opinions of racism, somewhere and sometime there is someone who reads those words, and like Dylann Roof, goes and acts on them and we end up with 9 dead church ladies.  I can't say the same for the actions of Wolf...I can't imagine they would do anything except tell us he is pissed...frankly, a lesser evil.

Know what worries me?
You believe the shit you just posted.
Your own bias is invisible to you.

Well have you throughout failed to condemn Majors views or in actual fact defended him being able to say his racist views?

Again both posters are in the wrong and you are using this to start a fight on the forum
As anyone with a clear mind not clouded by emotion, would not be trying to get posters banned or ignoring racism. 

I suggest both you and Quill stop the fight you are starting between each other

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are saying there has never been a travesty of justice?

No, but I watched the trial and agreed with the evidence.

I read your conclusion and how you arrived at it.. You cherry-picked evidence. Your conclusion was a joke.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, but I watched the trial and agreed with the evidence.

I read your conclusion and how you arrived at it..  You cherry-picked evidence.  Your conclusion was a joke.

I remember you refusing to consider the evidence actually. You're the one who cherry picked. You also assumed that Zimmerman must be guilty because he shot a black teenager.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Know what worries me?
You believe the shit you just posted.
Your own bias is invisible to you.

The shit I post favors peace and humanism.

What you post gives encouragement to evil-doers.

Peace and humanism?! By condoning threats of violence ?
Twit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are saying there has never been a travesty of justice?

No, but I watched the trial and agreed with the evidence.

So you agree that there is cases for a travesty of justice

So saying you watched the evidence, when you never watched the trial is in fact in error
Plus, the fact a young boy is dead, because he was wrongly stereotyped as a criminal
Whether a court finds someone innocent of a crime, he is still guilty of causing that boys death, by his actions that day. If he had of allowed the Police to investigate, than take it upon himself, that boy would be alive today

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The shit I post favors peace and humanism.

What you post gives encouragement to evil-doers.

Peace and humanism?! By condoning threats of violence ?
Twit.

Well have you throughout failed to condemn Majors views or in actual fact defended him being able to say his racist views?

Again both posters are in the wrong and you are using this to start a fight on the forum
As anyone with a clear mind not clouded by emotion, would not be trying to get posters banned or ignoring racism. 

I suggest both you and Quill stop the fight you are starting between each other

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, but I watched the trial and agreed with the evidence.

So you agree that there is cases for a travesty of justice

So saying you watched the evidence, when you never watched the trial is in fact in error
Plus, the fact a young boy is dead, because he was wrongly stereotyped as a criminal
Whether a court finds someone innocent of a crime, he is still guilty of causing that boys death, by his actions that day. If he had of allowed the Police to investigate, than take it upon himself, that boy would be alive today

I said I watched the trial. The fact is that Zimmerman acted in self defence at the time of the shooting.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I read your conclusion and how you arrived at it..  You cherry-picked evidence.  Your conclusion was a joke.

I remember you refusing to consider the evidence actually. You're the one who cherry picked. You also assumed that Zimmerman must be guilty because he shot a black teenager.

No, I put the evidence in proper perspective. As I recall, you showed overwhelming selective perception, dismissed important evidence, and cherry-picked the rest. Had you been on that jury I would have been looking into bribery somewhere.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you agree that there is cases for a travesty of justice

So saying you watched the evidence, when you never watched the trial is in fact in error
Plus, the fact a young boy is dead, because he was wrongly stereotyped as a criminal
Whether a court finds someone innocent of a crime, he is still guilty of causing that boys death, by his actions that day. If he had of allowed the Police to investigate, than take it upon himself, that boy would be alive today

I said I watched the trial. The fact is that Zimmerman acted in self defence at the time of the shooting.

Allegedly.
Again, whether a court finds someone innocent of a crime, he is still guilty of causing that boys death, by his actions that day. If he had of allowed the Police to investigate, than take it upon himself, that boy would be alive today. His irresponsible acts based off racial profiling, led to that boys death. The boy was not armed and being followed by an adult with a gun. How frightened would you be if someone was shadowing you? Enough to fear for your life and fight to stay alive?

I told Wolfie he cannot say things like that here. That is the action I deemed appropriate.

THREAD LOCKED.