Latest news with #ShilohHendrix
Kiwiblog
17-05-2025
- Kiwiblog
Don't reward appalling behaviour
The Free Press reports: Last Wednesday, a video went viral of a white woman defending her actions after calling a 5-year-old black boy the N-word because, allegedly, the kid had tried to steal from her son's diaper bag. There are no circumstances in which it is okay for an adult to call a five year old black kid a ni**er. The video spread lightning-fast from TikTok to Instagram to X. Almost immediately, the woman in question was identified by online sleuths as Shiloh Hendrix of Rochester, Minnesota. Commenters disgusted by her racism called on the internet to 'make her famous.' Now you can't call a five year old the n word and expect no consequences. However you can also agree that some people on the Internet went too far by publishing her home address and social security number etc. Hendrix, surely sensing an opportunity, started a fundraising campaign on GiveSendGo, a GoFundMe-like platform that self-identifies as the '#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site.' … Meanwhile, Shiloh raised her fundraising goal to $100,000. Then to $150,000. Then to $250,000. Then she surpassed that goal. Now, Hendrix is seeking $1 million—you know, for moving expenses. Currently, she's raised over $670,000. She's now at $760,000. You shouldn't get almost a million dollars for calling a 5 year old black kid a ni**er and being called out on it. Yes you can agree her doxxing shouldn't have happened, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The so-called ‘woke right' is just old-school racism by another name
Shiloh Hendrix, a white Minnesota woman, went viral after repeatedly calling a child on a playground the N-word. The financial windfall she then received — reportedly over $700,000 — from crowdfunding donors, many of whom apparently saw in the unrepentant racist a fearless hero, is a despicable and miserable commentary on the current state of America's soul. But it isn't shocking. Far-right racism and white grievance culture have been ascendant and increasingly mainstreamed for at least a decade. Their most influential avatar — President Donald Trump — is once again in power. (It doesn't get more mainstream than the presidency.) But to many of those I call 'MAGA centrists' — ostensibly nonconservatives who blame the left for making them either Trump supporters or very Trump-sympathetic — unabashed right-wing racism is a terrible, but entirely new, phenomenon. And wouldn't you know it, they say 'wokeness' is to blame. They've even coined a name for Hendrix and her donors' style of racism: 'the woke right.' In the MAGA centrists' telling, the woke left is obsessed with identity politics and clings to a perpetual victim mentality, a desire to cancel its adversaries and an adherence to bonkers conspiracy theories, and it rewrites historical facts to suit its political agenda. The woke right, they say, is merely an unfortunate mirror reaction to that. An article by River Page published this week in The Free Press — among the most influential Trump-friendly sites that insists it's nonpartisan despite ample evidence to the contrary — argued that 'the excesses of the left — canceling all those innocent Americans — has triggered an equal and opposite reaction on the right, which has become more and more extreme in railing against cancel culture.' Page added, 'Basically: The left cried wolf, and now the wolf is here on your phone, calling a little boy in Minnesota the N-word on camera — and there's a new, identity politics-obsessed far right waiting in the wings to reward her for it.' This argument, to put it politely, combines an outrageous rewriting of history with a monomaniacal worldview that assumes the left is all-powerful and the far right has no agency. This isn't the first time The Free Press has put the responsibility of overt right-wing racism at the feet of the woke left. In February, amid a spate of what looked like Nazi-esque salutes from powerful MAGA figures including Steve Bannon and Elon Musk, The Free Press published an essay by Richard Hanania, who previously wrote vile, racist content under a pseudonym for the alt-right's flagship website. Explaining his past association with this particular racist, antisemitic, Trump-supporting movement, he wrote, 'To understand where this comes from you need to go back to the 2010s. Back then, online rightists reacted to the Great Awokening by leaning into performative racism, sexism, and homophobia through edgy memes and jokes.' Once again, the identity politics and victim grievance culture of right-wing racists, sexists and homophobes are waved away as unthreatening and understandable (though unpleasant) responses to left-wing wokeness. As far as other traits ascribed to the woke right by the MAGA centrists — rewriting history, dividing people by their identity groups and pushing conspiracy theories — I can think of a few people who fit that bill who can't be dismissed as insignificant internet trolls. How about Tucker Carlson repeatedly pushing the racist and antisemitic 'great replacement' theory on his top-rated Fox News show? How about Vice President JD Vance, who as a candidate last year chose to amplify what he knew was a racist lie that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were kidnapping their neighbors' pets and eating them? How about Trump, in his first term, telling U.S.-born members of Congress — who happen to be women of color — to 'go back where they came from?' Or his more recent claim that immigrants are 'vermin' and 'poisoning the blood' of America? What the MAGA centrists call the woke right is merely an evolution of the online alt-right (a brand that few wanted to be associated with after its murderous rally in Charlottesville in 2017) and which was later also referred to as 'the dissident right.' Though they don't all share the same, exact worldview as the Nazi-adjacent alt-right, this 'dissident' right also includes elements of Christian nationalism, QAnon and far-right street militias like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. All of these entities were inspired and emboldened by Trump and, to a great extent, he embraced them back. Over the past decade, Never Trumper ex-Republicans and ex-libertarians loudly warned of the rising influence and genuine threat posed by what they now call the woke right. But we just called them what they were, racists and aspiring fascists, and refused to buy into the fiction that they were merely motivated by 'economic anxiety.' But a great many of us — who, before Trump conquered the Republican Party and most of the conservative and libertarian movements, had previously identified as on the moderate or center-right — were also critical of the excesses of significant segments of the activist left. Over the past decade, I've blasted elements of the left for mob-led zero tolerance cancellations, winking support for antisemitic terrorists, excusing rioting and wanton violence as righteous expressions of dissent, pushing incoherent definitions of racism and anti-racism as gospel and demanding the government be the arbiters of acceptable speech in the name of fighting bigotry. It isn't a heroic act to hold principles and call out both the left and the right when they stand in opposition to those principles. But many MAGA centrists are either unwilling or unable to do that. Trump is purging librarians, artists, generals and civil servants who won't pledge loyalty to his imperial presidency, and he's issued executive orders against individuals who stood up to his big lie. That's cancel culture. His administration includes people who've paid no price for their public displays of racism and antisemitism, he pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who wore Nazi-themed T-shirts and carried Confederate flags, and he's aiming to gut the Civil Rights Act. That's identity politics and victim grievance culture. And it's hard to know where to begin when it comes to false conspiracy theories and rewritten histories emanating from this White House. Self-reflection is hard and often painful, and for the MAGA centrists who are a bit embarrassed by the increasingly open racism of the MAGA right, it's just easier to blame the 'left.' But when it comes to warnings about Trump and MAGA's racism, lies and predilection to cancel their enemies, the left and the Never Trump center-right (oft-derided as afflicted by 'Trump Derangement Syndrome') were a whole lot more prescient about the horrors we're currently experiencing than the MAGA centrists — who never could accept that what they term the 'woke right' was always there, inside the same MAGA big tent they shared. The 'woke right' isn't an understandable response to the 'woke left,' and it sure as hell isn't new. It has a home in the White House, and MAGA centrists have spent a decade whitewashing its sins and enabling its rise to power. Many Trump supporters say they feel liberated by his re-election to once again freely use slurs that had been previously socially verboten. It's not too much of a stretch to wonder if the N-word-spouting Shiloh Hendrix — and her many donors — have felt similarly liberated by Trump's return to power. This article was originally published on
News.com.au
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- News.com.au
Piers Morgan slams popular trad wife as ‘despicable' over shock act
A trad wife has confessed to regularly using a racial slur — a year after the use of that same word got her fired. Lilly Gaddis, 24, is a social media star and 'trad wife', a term which refers to women who embrace 'traditional gender roles' within marriage. Now Ms Gaddis has found herself in hot water again after recently appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored, to discuss Shiloh Hendrix, a woman who has been accused of calling a black child a slur. When asked why she would 'want to support a white racist', her response was that she wanted to support free speech. 'That's fine, you can support free speech but you also have to be accountable for what you say. I mean, would you use the N-word,' Morgan asked her. Ms Gaddis confirmed she would use the racial slur, and had done so repeatedly and 'frequently'. The British host demanded to know why she'd use the term, calling her a 'despicable racist'. 'Some would say I am. According to the ADL, I'm a white supremacist. I'm a neo-Nazi,' she said. She said she would 'embrace' being called a racist if that meant 'helping white people achieve real freedom of speech'. When asked if she uses it when with black people, she said she did when it was 'appropriate'. When asked to clarify that she said: 'Any time I feel like it'. Ms Gaddis tried to bring the discussion back to Ms Hendrix, but Morgan said she had 'moved on' the conversation to her own racism. 'It explains why you've supported her in public and why you've got all these views. You see no problem with a woman shrieking the N-word repeatedly is because you yourself are a despicable racist,' Morgan said. 'And you've just proudly admitted that with a smug grin on your face — which is pretty horrifying.' The video prompted a huge response from audiences, with many stunned to agree with the controversial British media personality. 'I did not have 'Agreeing with Piers Morgan' on my 2025 Bingo Card,' one social media user said. Another added: 'You know she's bad when Piers Morgan seems left wing.' 'When Piers Morgan is against you, you know it's bad,' another social media user said. One person commented: 'This woman is a pathetic human being!' 'She does have freedom of speech. She can say it. Anyone can, but they can't wrap their heads around the fact THEY'RE NOT FREE FROM THE CONSEQUENCE,' another added. One social media user said: 'Yet Piers Morgan is ALLOWING that kind of person to have a platform.' 'It is never appropriate to be racist, ever. America be better, do better,' one commented. One said: 'My eyebrows just kept going higher and higher and higher.' 'Freedom of speech should just be called, freedom of hate speech, at this point, because that's the only time we even hear about it,' another added. It's not the first time Ms Gaddis has openly used the racial slur and faced consequences for her actions. Last year, she was filming herself in the kitchen and said the N-word — and also referenced 'dumb wh***s,' 'immigrants fresh off the boat looking for a green card' and 'gold diggers'. She then posted an 'apology' following backlash, where she said she 'couldn't find a care'. Ms Gaddis worked as a marketing and sales manager at Rophe of the Carolinas, a home healthcare company for the elderly and disabled in Wilmington, North Carolina. Although Rophe of the Carolinas did not name Ms Gaddis, it emphasised in a statement that the 'newly hired' employee was axed over 'inflammatory remarks on social media that do not align with the values and beliefs of our company'. 'Oh no I just got fired! #mob,' Ms Gaddis tweeted following the announcement.
Daily Mail
09-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Fundraising exec DEFENDS racist woman who called nine-year-old the N word in disgusting slur
The head of controversial Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo has defended a white woman who was filmed directing a vile racial slur at a five-year-old black boy in a Minnesota playground. The woman, identified as 34-year-old Shiloh Hendrix, has become a lightning rod in a saga that all began with a viral video - and from which she has now managed to raise more than$761,000 from supporters across the country. In a move has left civil rights groups stunned and critics seething, the head of the fundraising site hosting Hendrix's campaign is not only refusing to remove her page but defending her cause. 'You have to take a step back from the emotion of these because they are very highly emotional issues,' said GiveSendGo co-founder Jacob Wells in an interview with NewsNation. 'I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of association. These are foundational tenets to the society that we live in.' Wells, whose site has been used in the past to fund January 6 defendants and other high-profile right-wing causes, insisted that Hendrix's page was no different. 'When you start going down the road of cancellation and cancel culture it actually breaks the very things that we see that we're against,' he said. That statement comes as Hendrix's GoFundMe-style campaign skyrockets past three-quarters of a million dollars, with a goal of $1 million. Her pitch is that she and her children are in fact the victims in this case, forced to endure harassment and threats after she was caught on camera repeating the N-word while holding her own toddler. The incident that sparked this controversy unfolded in late last month at Soldiers Field Memorial Park in Rochester. In the video, Hendrix is seen clutching her child while being confronted by a man who accuses her of calling a young black boy the N-word after a dispute over a toy. 'So that gives you the right to call the child, five-years-old, a n*****?' the man asks in disbelief. Hendrix responds: 'If that's what he's gonna act like,' before repeating the slur toward the man and making an obscene gesture. The confrontation, which Hendrix later claimed began when the child allegedly took a toy from her son's diaper bag, spread across social media. The footage, posted by influencer Michael McWhorter (aka TizzyEnt), was viewed more than 10 million times within 48 hours, but what followed was even more shocking as a torrent of financial support flowed in for Hendrix. On her GiveSendGo page, Hendrix wrote, 'I called the kid out for what he was.' She claimed her Social Security number had been leaked, that her family was being 'attacked,' and that she needed funds to 'relocate and protect' her children. 'I've never felt so scared, yet reassured in my life,' Hendrix wrote. 'It's truly a whirlwind of emotions. I'm still very frightened, and I don't think I will feel safe until we can escape completely.' To many, the very idea that someone could rake in nearly a million dollars after verbally attacking a child with a racial slur is a damning indictment of modern America. 'Who knew racism could be so profitable?' one person wrote on X. 'Wow. SMH. She has raised enough money to move out the country if she wanted to… just by being racist towards a 5-year-old boy with autism. This country is so sad bro,' another posted. Wale Elegbede, president of the Rochester NAACP, condemned the incident as 'deeply disturbing and unacceptable.' His organization launched a counter-fundraiser to support the young boy's family, raising more than $341,000 before being paused amid concerns over online threats and privacy. Rochester Mayor Kim Norton also issued a stark message: 'Not In Our Town! Hate has no home here.' But Hendrix has defenders - and not just in anonymous comment threads. Appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored, right-wing influencer Lilly Gaddis stunned viewers when asked whether she would support a white woman using the N-word. 'Yes,' Gaddis replied. 'I do it quite frequently.' Morgan, visibly taken aback, asked why she would support 'a white racist.' Gaddis fired back: 'Because I want to support free speech.' Jacob Wells isn't backing down. In his NewsNation interview, he described the public backlash against Hendrix as 'mob mentality,' claiming that outrage over her words was hurting free society more than it was helping. 'Shiloh is going to a dark moment, just as much as this other family is,' Wells said. 'And we want to be in all of these moments.' He added that her actions were not 'unprovoked,' and that the child's behavior should also be considered. Legal experts note that while the First Amendment protects Hendrix's offensive language, any associated threats or harassment could still result in criminal charges. The Rochester Police Department has confirmed it has concluded its investigation and submitted findings to the city attorney for review. The child's family, choosing to remain anonymous for safety reasons, released a statement through the NAACP: 'We as the parents of the young boy demand that those responsible for this tragic event… be held fully accountable. Our child deserves justice and we will not rest until it is served.' They also expressed dismay that Hendrix appears to be 'benefiting financially' from the encounter, while their own family has been left to navigate trauma and fear with far limited resources.
Toronto Sun
09-05-2025
- Toronto Sun
SHAPIRO: Living with consequences and 'cancel culture'
A screenshot of an online fundraiser on the Christian fundraising platform, GiveSendGo, is seen on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. Photo by Terry Tang / AP This week saw two odd but parallel stories. The first featured a white Minnesota woman, Shiloh Hendrix, who allegedly spotted a Somali child rifling her diaper bag at the park. She reportedly hurled a racial slur at the child. An irate park-goer with a rather questionable background then followed her down the street while filming her and yelling at her. She responded by doubling down. The video went viral. Hendrix claims her address was publicly revealed and that she is under threat, so she took to GiveSendGo to ask for money. She quickly raised over $500,000. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, a similar case broke in the news. A young Muslim man, Mo Khan, posted a video to his Instagram from a Barstool restaurant, in which he reportedly asked waitresses to bring out a sign reading 'F*** the Jews.' This prompted Barstool owner Dave Portnoy, who is Jewish, to call him out publicly. Khan then posted his own video begging for money, claiming he was being victimized by cancel culture. To date, he has raised approximately $15,000. So, what's going on? There is an ongoing argument breaking into the open about 'cancel culture' — meaning criticism, ostracization or social sanction for behaviour or opinion. The first perspective, which was the dominant left-wing perspective for over a decade, suggests cancellation is itself a positive good and ought to be widely applied; that any violation of taboo, no matter how minor, ought to be socially punished. This perspective, as applied, was censorious and ugly as it forbade useful conversations about vital but controversial topics. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The right responded by embracing the counter-perspective that social sanction and even criticism should be treated as wrong. The problem with the Cancel Nothing perspective is that if there is never any social sanction or criticism for bad behaviour or terrible opinion, we slide into a world of total moral relativism, in which the ugliest opinions and expressions are given equal credibility with decent or even controversial but useful opinions. The reality of social consequences for ugly behaviour and argument is more complex: Sometimes people deserve blowback. Not all blowback is created equal. Criticism is not social ostracization, is not firing, is not violence. For example, you have no duty to hire or have over to dinner someone who shouts a racial slur at children or who says that white people are colonizers and evil, but you also shouldn't post that person's address online so people can harass them. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. We all know this in our daily lives. If there's a nasty fellow at the local diner who grumbles about Jews or whites or blacks, we simply avoid him. And that's generally the end of it. In practice, the emergent and informal standards of the social fabric work just fine. Most issues remain personal. But the social media age has ended all that. Now, mobs form to destroy people for reasons both good and bad — so we're all forced to decide whether we think that person in question is bad or good, hero or villain, deserving of shame or support. And we must decide what level of shame and what level of support. These are complicated questions. Add to that the fact that we, as a society, no longer hold in common any conception of what constitutes appropriate behaviour or argument, and we quickly descend into a world of bright lines: Cancel Everything or Cancel Nothing. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. So, what is the solution? The solution is to prosecute those who violate the law — if you incite violence against someone because they said something nasty to a child on the playground, you should go to jail; to adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis and with dispassion, the nature of the behaviour or speech; to defend those who are innocent and those whose 'cancellation' is disproportionate. But will that happen? It's increasingly unlikely in a world in which the most extreme behaviour and opinion receive the loudest applause. Those who shout to Cancel Everything drive support for those who shout to Cancel Nothing and vice versa. If we wish for a better world and a better conversation, we ought to acknowledge that we are all human and deserve both criticism and mercy, when appropriate. Perhaps to build that better world, we all ought to log off for a while. Toronto & GTA Columnists NFL Ontario NBA
