Jump to content

When will the media learn?


Recommended Posts

ALSO: I hate to back RMalice, but I really do believe his Black Friday reference was looters taking from stores before the traditional start to the holiday season. JMO.

im sure it was and I'm sorry for bringing it up. Was conflating what he said into another convo I was following off the board where ppl were trying to do the "I'm funny cause im offensive" thing. Which, unless you are Daniel tosh or Seth macfarlane, you should probably stay the hell away from until ppl cool down a bit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't speak for Copper. What I think Carrie is getting at here, correct me if I'm wrong, can be summed up as follows: It isn't necessarily bad to be an "ally" or stand in "solidarity" with this oppr

RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no re

Thanks (I guess?)   I'm severe because I feel strongly about this. I think the biggest problem, and challenge, facing modern leftism is its tendency towards vicarious victimhood. I think this subjuca

Well in my opinion its yellow journalism that is biased like you said monkeygirl. I wish the media would simply not turn a routine incident between a police officer and a suspect in a strong armed robbery into a specticle because what we saw last night is a classic example of people who do not understand fact from fiction and the laws of this country to showcase their ignorance on tv by looting and setting fires.

 

You do not give people like that the time of day and the police should have protected the stores along with the owners.

Thanks for clarifying. I have friends who have quit the news business because of the station owners' need for sensationalism. I'd like to see more of that-more responsible journalism. Part of the problem is that media doesn't want to pay its workers so we have very young persons with no real journalism backgrounds in many cases churning out the crap. The can't discern between a good witness and a loser. They'll talk with/put on TV ANYONE on a scene. Check out any news online and you can see the ignorance and stupidity in print with unnecessary punctuation and misspellings all over the page.

 

But I don't think the people setting things afire CARE about the laws. They're simply mad that another white cop has killed another African American and has no price to pay,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in my opinion its yellow journalism that is biased like you said monkeygirl. I wish the media would simply not turn a routine incident between a police officer and a suspect in a strong armed robbery into a specticle because what we saw last night is a classic example of people who do not understand fact from fiction and the laws of this country to showcase their ignorance on tv by looting and setting fires.

 

You do not give people like that the time of day and the police should have protected the stores along with the owners.

In the beginning of the protests in Ferguson, there were hardly any journalists there. Journalists really started pouring after two journalists were arrested for sitting in a McDonald's writing their story. This story has gotten bigger and bigger, that's definitely true. It has been gaining attention, and more journalists have been covering it ever since the Wesley Lowery was arrested. It's not JUST about Michael Brown, it's because Missouri cops decided to treat peaceful protesters like they were military insurgents. You've got cops pointing weapons at reporters saying, "I'll ****ing kill you." It's because white cops are profiling black people.

 

 

I'm not excusing rioting. But if you can't understand it, then you are out of touch. Unfortunately, many of the the problems faced by black people in America during MLKs times are still festering in modern day America.

 

RM, you keep saying that you wish people would just respect the law. I get that. It's kinda easy for you to say that too, after all, you respect the law. So it can't be that hard, right? But how do you respect a rule of law that has absolutely no respect for you? How can you respect that, when you live in a place that treats you as if you are lesser? Every day. Riots are bad; they're bad because they are distracting us from coming up with real solutions to real problems.

 

The whole thing just makes me sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RM, you keep saying that you wish people would just respect the law. I get that. It's kinda easy for you to say that too, after all, you respect the law. So it can't be that hard, right? But how do you respect a rule of law that has absolutely no respect for you? How can you respect that, when you live in a place that treats you as if you are lesser? Every day. Riots are bad; they're bad because they are distracting us from coming up with real solutions to real problems.

 

The whole thing just makes me sad.

RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no respect for you?" This sounds awfully like a talking point you just pulled off of Twitter somewhere. Are you seriously suggesting that there's two set of laws applied in MO? Like a set of black statutes, and white statutes? Because I just hopped onto Lexis and there's, in fact, only one set of laws in MO. Also who exactly made you the authority on the black experience in Ferguson? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong and you're a black person in Ferguson. But outside of that, since when do you feel you can appropriately comment on what it feels like to "live in a place that treats you as if you are lesser?" It sounds an awful lot to me like you merely want to use this situation to make a political point from an air of self-righteousness, something that is, quite honestly, despicable to me.

 

 

Finally, that image you posted is borderline meaningless. All it states is that there are more black arrests than white arrests, something that is true almost anywhere in the US and doesn't really speak to anything about Ferguson in particular, or the laws of MO, or how disciplined their police department is, or whatever. It may say a lot about other things, like perhaps prevalence of gang activity in the black community, or the relative difference in socio-economic levels between whites and blacks in Ferguson, but it doesn't say much about if the laws are unfair (or unfairly applied). Furthermore, the 1/3 vs 1/5 stat is too vague to be helpful. The sample size of whites is so much smaller (i.e. 36 vs. 483, or put another way, the black sample size is 93% larger), that it is difficult to draw any trends to compare the two. It could be that the actual rate is the same, so that if you had a few more arresting events with a few white groups, the percentages would equal out over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If instead of "ruins their day" you had written "indiscriminately calls them hypocrites" I'd agree with you.

 


RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no respect for you?" This sounds awfully like a talking point you just pulled off of Twitter somewhere. Are you seriously suggesting that there's two set of laws applied in MO? Like a set of black statutes, and white statutes? Because I just hopped onto Lexis and there's, in fact, only one set of laws in MO.
I am almost entirely sure you know what she meant!
Edited by R.CAllen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure, I can infer what ultimate point she was trying to make. I'm asking the question to see if she has put in the requisite amount of thought that would indicate to me that she has a sophisticated understanding of the subject, or if she is just repeating things she has read elsewhere.

 

So you know what she meant but just wanted to make sure she knew what she meant. You're like some sort of crap Socrates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three times in this thread so far!

If somebody spends several pages deriding a jury decision, demanding a vociferous public response, and advocating for the abandonment of the rule of law; and then returns later pressing for the public to remain calm, to respect a jury decision, and to uphold the rule of law, then one can infer that such person is feigning one of those beliefs and is likely a hypocrite.

 

But upon further reflection, you might have a point! It's possible, especially given RM's post above, that he isn't actually aware of his contradiction. In such case, you'd be right, he would not be a hypocrite, just a regular old dimwit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well sure, I can infer what ultimate point she was trying to make. I'm asking the question to see if she has put in the requisite amount of thought that would indicate to me that she has a sophisticated understanding of the subject, or if she is just repeating things she has read elsewhere.

So you know what she meant but just wanted to make sure she knew what she meant. You're like some sort of crap Socrates.

 

I guess you could say that was the motivation, yes.

 

However, it would not be accurate to call me a Socrates, either crap or no. Plato's purpose in the dialogues was to use a dialectic method of prose to establish certain logical principles, to engage in critical thinking, and so on.

 

I have no such higher purpose. I'm asking solely so I can decide whether to negatively judge Copper and use this instance to criticize her in the future if she takes a self-righteous tone that I feel is unwarranted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...