useless
Social Justice Rogue
See here's the thing, im not going to give white supremecists the benefit of the doubt when they go to BlackLivesMatter Protests.
You can, im really not sure why you would though Bhavv.
Media Coverage of the Black Lives Matter Shootings
- Thread starter illram
- Start date
See here's the thing, im not going to give white supremecists the benefit of the doubt when they go to BlackLivesMatter Protests.
You can, im really not sure why you would though Bhavv.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Yeah man because that's totally the same as armed white supremecists turning up at a black lives matter protest, with the intent of getting into a scuffle so they can use those weapons
Keep going mate
Keep going mate
Because they actually have the freedom to do so?
What exactly about that freedom are you opposed to exactly?
Well it completely would be the exact same thing. People turning up to a public event simply because they can.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I'm just asking why you feel the need to give white supremecists the benefit of the doubt here.
Not sure why you'd not watch the video, it's just a dude explaining what he saw, nothing more than that. Maybe skip the comments section.
The eye witness in the video has been questioned directly after the incident and was directly involved, the people from the media are mostly quoting a twitter account. That's why.
And that's exactly what I'm saying, why the hell are the media not doing their job, and why are you shielding yourself from the evidence that is counter to your initial information?
Yes, it seems like they wanted this to happen, what's the argument? I am not saying they have done the right thing. In fact, I think what they have done is rightfully condemned, but still, just "being there" is not illegal, BLM should have ignore them, then they would have been the "peaceful protesters" that people are claiming they have been - which they clearly were not.
Yes they were. Even if 5 people "got in a scuffle" or whatever with armed, camo wearing, ski masked people video taping them, the protest was as a group peaceful.
Again, the point is there is no significant coverage of this event, and my "thesis" is this is part of a larger problem of racial bias in the news media.This (i.e. racial bias in the news media) is probably not really news to anyone. Your argument seems to be the media is not doing it's job in not "properly" reporting on "what really happened" i.e. white people were just defending themselves against the crazy violent blacks, or whatever it is you are saying. I am not really interested in that discussion because that isn't what happened.
I'm doing no such thing.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Of course you don't think you are.
Lets try applying role reversal:
A group of white supremacists organise some white supremacist protest.
Armed black people show up.
The white supremacists try shooing them away.
The black people feel provoked and open fire.
In that situation would you be defending the white supremacists or the black people?
A group of white supremacists organise some white supremacist protest.
Armed black people show up.
The white supremacists try shooing them away.
The black people feel provoked and open fire.
In that situation would you be defending the white supremacists or the black people?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Is that the situation that occured here?
The armed black people in that hypothetical would probably be shot by the cops before anything got out of hand.
warpus
In pork I trust
I guess, but in the end it is the free market that's sort of driving this. If that's what your consumers want, that's what you give them. Your shareholders demand it. What sells is what's done, over all other considerations, aside from legal ones.
If the CBC was doing a horrible job reporting something of note to the Canadian public, I'd have a reason to complain, since I subsidise them with my tax dollars, and since profits aren't their #1 concern for that reason, so I expect them to not pander to the lowest common denominator and unnecessary sensationalism. I'd formally complain and try to get other citizens on board. But if it's say, I don't know, CNN doing it, I can only really vote with my wallet.
I was asking for your answer to the reversed role situation to see if you would apply the same logic and blame the black people.
Or would you simply blame the white supremacists because they are white supremacists?
And we havnt even gotten onto the USA's 'right to bear arms for self defense' part yet.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
What's with this whataboutism? We're trying to deal with what actually happened, not made up scenarios.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,395
It was not 5 people, it's about 20 which can once again be seen in the video linked above.
Well, you would obviously be a good reporter, you're already very good at misrepresenting what is being said.
No, "what really happened" as far as we know is not that white people defended themselves, what happened is that white people showed up at an event to provoke, the people protesting took the bait and got physical, then some protesters were shot. It's unknown whether that was in self-defense because things got out of control, or whether the people who were there to interrupt the event opened fire because they thought they could get away with it although they did not feel like they were in any real danger.
Moral of the story: Don't get provoked by idiots.
As for the media coverage: I actually disagree and think that BLM got tons of coverage when stuff went down. The case that BLM is currently protesting is shady at best (guy who allegedly hit his girl and whatnot got "executed" by a cop who has no record of breaking rules), but the more clear-cut cases were covered rather excessive, everything including actual events and the positive and negative sides of the protests.
So what you are saying is, this is really symptomatic of a larger problem. I.e., "the public," i.e. the media consumer, gets the coverage in more or less an accurate proportion to their amount of interest. I think that is probably accurate. I guess I wonder then how do you change public interest in what is to me part of a huuuuuuuuge and uniquely American problem (i.e. black/white race relations and racial politics in the US)?
In a country founded on white supremacy, with various forms of institutional and societal enforcement of white supremacy practiced up to the current moment, with all the implicit bias that will develop in such a culture is it a surprise that powerful institutions will reflect this back in media coverage? At least it is being recognized more broadly, 20 yrs ago those media disparities would probably have passed most people by, now they get a few people angry. Progress I guess.
It's not surprising. I am admittedly not really saying anything too insightful. I guess I thought this was an apt, timely demonstration of it.
chijohnaok
King
It's not a matter of whether you agree with what a protester has to say or what they stand for. It's a matter of whether they have the right to do so.
If you can justify today that one person or group should not be able to express their opinion or protest, then what happens in the future if the political winds shift the other way?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
---Evelyn Beatrice Hall
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evelynbeat109645.html
So shooting people is free speech then?
