Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Wait, what? This isn't something to be criticized for. Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing. He should be criticized for all the other shit, but not this.
They aren't complaining that he had a black son, but that he's an "undercover Democrat" because he's stated that he learned about racism from the kid, saying things like, “Michael being a Black American, and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges,” he said. “My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”
Further, there was a question as to if the kid was real since there are no photos. That led to the new clarification:
Speculation about whether Michael was a real person prompted Johnson’s office to clarify. “When Speaker Johnson first ran for Congress in 2016, he and his wife, Kelly, spoke to their son Michael—who they took in as newlyweds when Michael was 14 years old,” said Corinne Day, Johnson’s communications director, in a statement first reported by Newsweek. “At the time of the Speaker’s election to Congress, Michael was an adult with a family of his own. He asked not to be involved in their new public life.” Day added that Johnson “maintains a close relationship with Michael to this day.”
So if we are to believe him, there are no photos because that is the way the now-adult kid wants it.
I'm not going to believe a dang thing any Conservative says without concrete evidence and peer review.
If the black kid adoption story is real, there will be photos, and someone will be able to produce them. If there are no photos, it's all a lie.
You should apply that practice to all politicians. They never tell the truth if a lie will serve.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But the right has a habit of only showing empathy only when it directly affects them.
Black people deserve protection from the law, yes. But let's not pretend that he'd change his tune about LGBT people in a split second if his son turned out to be gay or trans.
Black people don’t deserve protection from the law. Black people deserve equal treatment under the law.
It’s not at all something to criticize, it’s noble to adopt a child. It’s his party base that will pillory him.
He hasn't legally adopted this "son" and he's not shown in any family photos.
And he had a history of making up bullshit
I think he's being criticized because, as per the article 'there are no pictures of his “adopted" child in public family photos.'
So either he lied altogether or he didn't want to be seen publicly with him. Since he spoke about it publicly, that might not be the actual reason
Let's see the long-form ~~birth certificate~~ family photos first!
Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing
Has he learned from it, though? I don't know enough to know about if he has or not.
Also, what were the motives in raising that kid? A lot of evangelical christians view adoption as a way to proselytize and they tend to treat those kids like shit- and usually white washing the kid. (see, for example, most adoption campaigns run by christian organizations... especially those that specialize in placing foreign kids- or indigenous kids.)
I can't speak to their motives, either, but the nobility of an act depends entirely on the motives behind the act. if somebody, for example, offs putin only to gain power themselves and continue on... that is quite different than offing putin to end the war in ukraine, yes?
I find it really odd they were able to get an adopted child immediately after getting married. I have some friends who've been trying to adopt unsuccessfully for years and they're fairly straight-edge professionals.
from NYT
In his public remarks over the years, Mr. Johnson describes Michael as his son and did not correct an interviewer who described Michael as “adopted.” Ms. Day said in an interview that the Johnsons did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy adoption process.” Ms. Day declined to say whether Michael was using “Johnson” as his surname.
So, I'm not sure who Day is, that's the only time they mention her. but apparently Ms Day is saying that, it wasn't a "real" adoption. whatever that means. non legal, but the kid lived with them? they abducted him? he really is his son, but didn't want to admit that?
So we have another Gaetz on our hand with this mystery boy who previously lived with him but is of no relation or guardianship?
Are they trying to adopt a teenager?
From another reply, it seems they never actually filled out any paperwork to adopt the guy so apparently he just lived with them for a little bit if he actually exists at all.
Adopted in this sense of the word that I had a friend stay by me for a few days when he was in town. Gotcha
Not how it should work necessarily, but if they're trying to adopt a white baby it's a very different wait time compared to a black 14 year old.
The right wing doesn't like that he has a black son.
That's why McCain lost to Bush Jr.
You can thank Karl Rove for that.
McCain's adopted daughter is from Bangladesh, by the way.
So the black son may not exist? That's kind of what the article is implying. Also, I want to hear from Michael's own mouth that he doesn't want reparations if he does exist.
Wikipedia says he has four kids. His campaign website also says 'father of four'. Looking at pictures of his family... on his campaign website....
I'll just.... leave it at that.
That would be psychotic if he made up having a black son.
I mean, That's from his campaign website. That's his family.
I'm not sure which is more psychotic. making up having a black son. Or... cutting said black son out of your family (well, public-political-grift) photos.
No, no, no, Michael didn't want to be part of public life, lol. He just wants to interject his "black feelings" about reparations to his dad to make laws off of. The more I learn, the more I think we're living in The Onion's world and we can't get out.
But seriously, that's a good point.
The story is that the kid is now 38. According to his campaign prior to running they talked and the kid requested to not be involved in the new public life.
If true that's actually pretty big.
Okay.
but.
There's zero photos online at all. No mention on the campaign, either. his campaign "about" section says "Father of four". that decision is said to have happened after his~~ speakership election~~ election to congress. There is a complete vacuum of photos online when you do an image search. plenty of family photos with four kids, but none with a fifth, older, black kid.
if this son exists, then he was scrubbed out of existence.... which is weird. I'm actually not sure which is worse. (I mean, at least acknowledge him somehow, right?)
(edit, fixed timing. Either way, he would have had a black son during at least one campaign,)
I definitely don't know the whole story. I'd love to know the truth provided it didn't invade on the privacy of someone that didn't ask for any of this. Which would be impossible to know without invading the privacy of someone. I know time and time again I've been fooled when trying to give conservatives even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
Which would be impossible to know without invading the privacy of someone.
not that hard, really. I mean, yeah. I guess it could be an invasion.... but, like a quick wave to the cameras make sense, because people are absolutely going to go nuts over it. I absolutely feel for the supposed son who absolutely deserves his privacy.
The only reason i could see the guy absolutely refusing to bail his dad out and just announce that he exists or maybe drop some old family photos with the son in it... is trauma. like. I'm not sure which is worse here- making up a token black son, or, that son deciding they were so awful to him that it was necessary to cut them out of his life.
The only reason here, is BS. The kid is real, he's a grown-ass adult with children of his own that he wants to keep away from the general public. This is conservative propaganda to make you think Johnson's statements on racial injustice (which lean toward "my white kids get opportunities and have an easier life that my black kid doesn't) are bunk. Which they're not, just because the guy doesn't want to do photo ops and give press releases doesn't mean he's fake. Johnson was first elected to Congress less than 10 years ago. His son made a decision not to be a pawn for his adopted father's political career to avoid the public, not his father; and the public are generally terrible, which makes it an appropriate and rational decision.
Which they’re not, just because the guy doesn’t want to do photo ops and give press releases doesn’t mean he’s fake. Johnson was first elected to Congress less than 10 years ago. His son made a decision not to be a pawn for his adopted father’s political career to avoid the public, not his father; and the public are generally terrible, which makes it an appropriate and rational decision.
explain this screen grab from his own campaign website:
Recognizing the son wants no part of his political career doesn't mean disavowing said son, does it? Why on earth would would they say 'father of four' instead of 'father of five'?
Wikipedia also lists his family as being 4 children. every source I can say he has four children. I can see no photos on any variation of websearch I can find of Johnson with a some one both identified as his son, who is black. none. Maybe, some how, magically, nobody ever looked into that or posted pictures on line... ever... or maybe it was scrubbed.
I don't know. What I do know is scrubbing yourself out like that is only going to raise questions. because as you say, the public is... well terrible.
(edit:) There seems to be some prior interiviews where Michael is mentioned. In that article they talk- too briefly to be clear about it- an interview with Ms Day (I can't tell if she's the one asking the questions or being asked?) from the article-
In his public remarks over the years, Mr. Johnson describes Michael as his son and did not correct an interviewer who described Michael as “adopted.” Ms. Day said in an interview that the Johnsons did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy adoption process.” Ms. Day declined to say whether Michael was using “Johnson” as his surname.
Mr. Johnson has spoken publicly about Michael largely when he has talked about race. He has described Michael as a “success story” and likened the experience of being a white couple adopting a Black teenager to the movie “The Blind Side,” the 2009 film that depicts a wealthy white family taking in an impoverished Black teenager who becomes a football star.
(end edit)
further, here's the 2020 PBS article he talks about him. Relevant quotes:
Yes, sure. We took Michael in almost 20 years ago. He was 14. I often — the easiest way to summarize the story is, I ask friends, have you seen the story “The Blind Side”? That was our story, except my Michael was not an NFL prospect, a similar story to that. And we took him in as our own. And Michael is now doing great. This is 20 years later. He’s in his mid-30s. He lives in California, four children of his own. He and Adonza (ph), they have a great family life. And he says to people, he shares his testimony that, were it not for our intervention in his life, that he would certainly have joined a gang, gotten on drugs, wound up in prison, or dead on the street somewhere. And that’s the harsh reality that we have here. What it’s taught me is, we now have four other children of our own. And my oldest son, Jack, ironically, this year is 14. And I have thought often through all these ordeals over the last couple of weeks about the difference in experiences between my two 14-year-old sons, Michael, being a black American, and Jack being white, Caucasian. They have different challenges. My son Jack has an easier path. He just does. The interesting thing about both these kids, Michael and Jack, is they’re both handsome, articulate, really talented kids gifted by God to do lots of things. But the reality is — and no one can tell me otherwise — my son Michael had a harder time than my son Jack is going to have simply because of the color of his skin. And that’s a reality. It’s an uncomfortable, painful one to acknowledge, but people have to recognize that’s a fact.
Any one you know whose actually adopted people? They do not make the kind of distinction he makes here. "My oldest son Jack ..." So; I say, either the guy doesn't exist, or something happened that caused the guy to not want to be part of Johnson's family.
It is interesting that a guy who supposedly learned about racism second hand, by raising a black child... is so deeply part of the anti-civil-rights crowd... is a bit shocking. And his issue with reparations is that "they have a culture of self reliance"?!
something smells off here. that's all I'm saying, really.
Which should be respected. People who aren't interested in being public figures should be able to bow out of it.
Very odd indeed. Is this guy another George Santos?
Lol the secret exposed news that he's actually not racist is a controversy, but there's zero issues against his intense anti gay stance.
That kid’s going to be so scarred.
They all lie to get to power. They all tell us what we want to hear so we will elevate them to this power. If a politician is moving their mouth, they are lying.