Israelis in Gaza or Ferguson, MO?

[slaterd]

well hey, bud, I'm not questioning if you're racist anymore...I mean, after all don't you have a black friend and live in little mexico?
I'm on your side, black activists and presidents (especially black ones) should keep their mouths shut :) nothing racist about that!

lol, I guess *I* don't understand how you equate the "list" with the situation being covered here: the killing of Brown is incidental to the "story" of news reporters being threatened with violence from the police, unarmed protestors being under curfew, militarizing the zone with civilian police, the national guard coming in to police the police, amnesty international deploying human rights observers on US soil for the first time in the agency's history,...

all part of an ongoing story

if you really gave a shit about any one of those names on the list then you'd go march in the streets and create awareness for your cause. but you don't care you simply want to use it as a bullet point in your list of racist responses for why black activists should stfu and no one should pay attention to what's going on in ferguson.

[Vedubin01]

So how do you quantify if something gets enough national media coverage? How do you determine we've reached the right amount of outrage or too much or too little?

Kinda depends on the media's agenda or pocket book.

[frankenbeemer]

lol, I guess *I* don't understand how you equate the "list" with the situation being covered here: the killing of Brown is incidental to the "story" of news reporters being threatened with violence from the police, unarmed protestors being under curfew, militarizing the zone with civilian police, the national guard coming in to police the police, amnesty international deploying human rights observers on US soil for the first time in the agency's history,...

all part of an ongoing story

if you really gave a shit about any one of those names on the list then you'd go march in the streets and create awareness for your cause. but you don't care you simply want to use it as a bullet point in your list of racist responses for why black activists should stfu and no one should pay attention to what's going on in ferguson.

A reasoned response, for most of it.

well hey, bud, I'm not questioning if you're racist anymore...I mean, after all don't you have a black friend and live in little mexico?
I'm on your side, black activists and presidents (especially black ones) should keep their mouths shut :) nothing racist about that!

This stuff is just aggravatingly childish. Oh well, I'm done beating that horse. Carry on, you're not the only one doing it.

[smooth]

This stuff is just aggravatingly childish. Oh well, I'm done beating that horse. Carry on, you're not the only one doing it.

He literally wrote those two points to demonstrate that he wasn't racist:

I live in Westside Phoenix...aka little Mexico. One of my best friends is a 40 yo black guy from NY.

and he's an urban black guy, too, so he really knows racism when he sees it

[ParsedOut]

lol, I guess *I* don't understand how you equate the "list" with the situation being covered here: the killing of Brown is incidental to the "story" of news reporters being threatened with violence from the police, unarmed protestors being under curfew, militarizing the zone with civilian police, the national guard coming in to police the police, amnesty international deploying human rights observers on US soil for the first time in the agency's history,...

all part of an ongoing story

if you really gave a shit about any one of those names on the list then you'd go march in the streets and create awareness for your cause. but you don't care you simply want to use it as a bullet point in your list of racist responses for why black activists should stfu and no one should pay attention to what's going on in ferguson.

It's not my list or my "racists responses", once again you fail to differentiate who you're addressing. I simply pointed out your lame argument tactics in this thread (among others).

[ParsedOut]

So how do you quantify if something gets enough national media coverage? How do you determine we've reached the right amount of outrage or too much or too little?

My point was that smoothie can't tell the difference between DAYS of coverage and SECONDS of coverage and equates them both to "national coverage" therefore they are equal.

[smooth]

the conversation was about none or not none

[ParsedOut]

the conversation was about none or not none

No...your twisted response turned it into an all or nothing. Once again, you win.

[BraveUlysses]

My point was that smoothie can't tell the difference between DAYS of coverage and SECONDS of coverage and equates them both to "national coverage" therefore they are equal.

And apparently you're missing the obvious point: if you can't quantify how much outrage or attention is enough or too much, it's invalid to use a list of events that "received no national attention" to discredit an event that has gotten too much.

[smooth]

Once again, you win.

:pimp:

[ParsedOut]

And apparently you're missing the obvious point: if you can't quantify how much outrage or attention is enough or too much, it's invalid to use a list of events that "received no national attention" to discredit an event that has gotten too much.

I'm not going to defend the list that was posted because for one I'm not sure I trust the source (white power folk can't be trusted) but on the same token you cannot discredit lack of proportional coverage due to some imaginary quantifier. It's obvious that the amount of media coverage is not equal and I believe that was the point being made. The fact that "no national coverage" was used and a few of you have jumped on that little tidbit is not surprising.

[frankenbeemer]

And apparently you're missing the obvious point: if you can't quantify how much outrage or attention is enough or too much, it's invalid to use a list of events that "received no national attention" to discredit an event that has gotten too much.

I think you have a point here, but it escapes me. I'll ponder it, but surely you can see the stark difference in the amount of coverage, you don't need a unit quantity to see that.

[frankenbeemer]

the conversation was about none or not none

No it wasn't. Classic strawman.

[smooth]

I'm not going to defend the list that was posted because for one I'm not sure I trust the source (white power folk can't be trusted) but on the same token you cannot discredit lack of proportional coverage due to some imaginary quantifier. It's obvious that the amount of media coverage is not equal and I believe that was the point being made. The fact that "no national coverage" was used and a few of you have jumped on that little tidbit is not surprising.

no, actually the reason we "jumped" on it is because it's the clearest example of hysteria running amok from the usuals in these threads. even that most basic response to the factually incorrect use of "no national media" has turned into a ridiculous sideshow of who is and who is not "racist."

It basically boils down to calling the president, black civil rights leaders, an entire community, the national media, and finally members of r3v racist for calling attention to what's going on in Ferguson vs. a couple members of r3v saying that those kinds of statements are totally ridiculous and smack of racism.

I'm glad you're on the side of ending that nonsensical diversion because it's blatantly obvious which of those two positions is the more ludicrous.


I made a more nuanced argument in post #104 but that was skipped like a stone on the lakes of your minds so back to the "no national media" vs. the "NBC is national media" >>> "ok, we mean not long enough on the national media" vs. "how much do you think is enough?"


There's also a much more complex discussion that can be had about structural racism, militarization of the police, and what goes through the mind of a kid and a cop as they are looking at each other over the barrel of a gun. I don't think it'd get very far without a few people hurling personal insults and shitting all over the place like pigeons. But I did at least point out the middle layer of issues to consider to see if anyone wasn't caught up in the zombie rush.

[slaterd]

I'm not going to defend the list that was posted because for one I'm not sure I trust the source (white power folk can't be trusted) but on the same token you cannot discredit lack of proportional coverage due to some imaginary quantifier. It's obvious that the amount of media coverage is not equal and I believe that was the point being made. The fact that "no national coverage" was used and a few of you have jumped on that little tidbit is not surprising.

the unequal coverage of black victim/white criminal to white victim/black criminals

Thank you for clearing that up.
That was the point I was trying to make. I know I used the phrase "no national coverage" even though that was an extreme. However, the fact remains of the, as you and I both said, the proportion and unequal coverage is extreme to say the least. Which was the original reason why I came in mentioning the massive reactions to these incidences that seem to have the same factors in play.