By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama, Gates, and Crowley. Any of them racist?

TheRealMafoo on 26 July 2009
Craan said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Case in point, I just went to CNN.com, and the lead story is this:

"Your color may determine how doctor treats you", along with the three sub stories:

Doctor bias over race, weight
Voices of black America
'Black in America 2,' Sat./Sun, 8p ET

So in the end, a white guy was discriminated against, and the media defuses it by pushing articles that try and justify the behavior.

I hate the media.

 Then why don't you just wacht Fox 'News'?

lol. Slanted news the other direction is not any better.

Some things that people would not think true due to the Media:

  • More white people died in Katrina, then black people.
  • More middle class and above died in Katrina, then poor people.
  • School murders had gone down the years leading up the Columbine, and even with Columbine, there were less killings in 1999, then the year before. Schools were getting safer, but America would never have known it. 

Just a few off the top of my head.



Around the Network
Craan on 26 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Craan said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Case in point, I just went to CNN.com, and the lead story is this:

"Your color may determine how doctor treats you", along with the three sub stories:

Doctor bias over race, weight
Voices of black America
'Black in America 2,' Sat./Sun, 8p ET

So in the end, a white guy was discriminated against, and the media defuses it by pushing articles that try and justify the behavior.

I hate the media.

 Then why don't you just wacht Fox 'News'?

lol. Slanted news the other direction is not any better.

Some things that people would not think true due to the Media:

  • More white people died in Katrina, then black people.
  • More middle class and above died in Katrina, then poor people.
  • School murders had gone down the years leading up the Columbine, and even with Columbine, there were less killings in 1999, then the year before. Schools were getting safer, but America would never have known it. 

Just a few off the top of my head.

I find myself less intelligent whenever I sit down and watch any of the 24 hour news channels.



Sqrl on 26 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:

In regards to the specific issue I found this commentary to be fairly spot on:

 

Form an image of a racist in your mind: someone who watches a TV report about a crime committed by a black person, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how black people are: they’re all criminals.” Is this racist attitude justified if the racist says:

 

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about black people, but I have seen and heard bad things about black people all my life. I know they commit a lot of crimes, and in fact, I have been robbed by three separate black people in my life.

Now, form an image in your mind of a black person who watches a TV report about police brutality, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how those white cops are: they’re all racists.” Is this attitude justified if the black person says:

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about white cops, but I have seen and heard bad things about white cops all my life. I know they hassle black people, and in fact, I have been mistreated by three separate white cops in my life.

For some reason, people who would never accept the racist’s justification of his racist attitudes, will nod their heads in approval as black people expound on why they believe all white cops are racists based upon their own personal experiences.

 

 

 

In regards to the Obama comment....who really cares?  We have far more important things to deal with right now. In reallity I'm far more annoyed that it was one of the ten questions asked of Obama and that he even felt the need to comment than I am about what he actually said.  Even so, dwelling on it is pointless, I'd much rather the focus be on issues of real national importance.

So if John McCain had won, and a few day ago said "I’m not surprised. That’s how black people are: they’re all criminals.", you would be shocked if asking him about it was one of 10 questions at a press conference?

If not, that's a double standard.

I mean who cares if he said that, we have far more important things to worry about. (sarcasm)

I'm saying that the president has more important things to deal with than this issue so I don't think blowing the thing into a war really serves to do any good at all. 

In the hypothetical situation you present yes I would be shocked if McCain had said that and I'm not shocked at what Obama said.  This is because THERE IS a double standard..it's not my double standard and I don't think it should be that way but I have negligible control over what is and is not expected and/or socially exceptable.  I can't change that, and a media lynching of Obama isn't going to change that. But it would throw a wrench into the process of actually doing something about the more pressing issues we face.
To Each Man, Responsibility
outlawauron on 28 July 2009
Craan said:

"I hate that term reverse racism would be hating your own race (White Guilt), and people dont seem to understand that what they percieve as "reverse racism" oftentimes is not about race at all but economic status, a mentality where if you weren't raised here you wouldnt understand to quote treach from naughty by nature "if you weren't raised in the ghetto you don't belong in the ghetto", and a very long history of discrimination that continues today. While thats not an excuse for people to act that way, and there are pretty racist black orginizations such as the Nation of Islam you have to understand that the "reverse racism "phenomenon is nothing more than a media created issue that allows for people like Rush Limbaugh and people like him, to call prominant minorities reverse racist without sounding racist themselves

We still live in a world where minorities are disproportianitly pulled over and having a black name http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc5118a.html

will reduce your chances of getting hired.    

If you actually think this is be true, then I sincerely disagree and I think that's ignorant.

While the economics are one thing, there is so much more to it than that.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Tyrannical on 29 July 2009

 

Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Around the Network
Craan on 29 July 2009
outlawauron said:
Craan said:

"I hate that term reverse racism would be hating your own race (White Guilt), and people dont seem to understand that what they percieve as "reverse racism" oftentimes is not about race at all but economic status, a mentality where if you weren't raised here you wouldnt understand to quote treach from naughty by nature "if you weren't raised in the ghetto you don't belong in the ghetto", and a very long history of discrimination that continues today. While thats not an excuse for people to act that way, and there are pretty racist black orginizations such as the Nation of Islam you have to understand that the "reverse racism "phenomenon is nothing more than a media created issue that allows for people like Rush Limbaugh and people like him, to call prominant minorities reverse racist without sounding racist themselves

We still live in a world where minorities are disproportianitly pulled over and having a black name http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc5118a.html

will reduce your chances of getting hired.    

If you actually think this is be true, then I sincerely disagree and I think that's ignorant.

While the economics are one thing, there is so much more to it than that.

I don't know where I mentioned economics in connection with reverse racism?



Sqrl on 29 July 2009
Craan said:

"I hate that term reverse racism would be hating your own race (White Guilt), and people dont seem to understand that what they percieve as "reverse racism" oftentimes is not about race at all but economic status, a mentality where if you weren't raised here you wouldnt understand to quote treach from naughty by nature "if you weren't raised in the ghetto you don't belong in the ghetto", and a very long history of discrimination that continues today. While thats not an excuse for people to act that way, and there are pretty racist black orginizations such as the Nation of Islam you have to understand that the "reverse racism "phenomenon is nothing more than a media created issue that allows for people like Rush Limbaugh and people like him, to call prominant minorities reverse racist without sounding racist themselves

We still live in a world where minorities are disproportianitly pulled over and having a black name http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc5118a.html

will reduce your chances of getting hired.    

The link to the study is gone but from what was posted the study has a good premise in the way they went about it but they stopped short of actually isolating the concluded cause in any substantive way.

Specifically, they show that having socially "normal" names means you will get your resume downloaded 17% more often on average and that the difference between highly "normal" names and names that are highly "irregular" can produce a difference of up to 50%.  They did not, however, show if this was exclusive to black sounding names and thus purely racially motivated or simply an aversion to calling someone whose name you can't pronounce easily (or any other reasons and combinations thereof).

In order to draw a strong conclusion statistically and scientifically it is not simply enough to show that there is some relation, you need explain the relation in detail.  Or to put it another way, knowing that there is a relationship is only the first step.

My impression is that more than likely there is a combination of racial aversion, an aversion to names you can't pronounce, and probably a few things I haven't thought of.  Which motivations exist to a statistically meaningful degree, and which motivations are most prominent is something the study can and should hopefully address in the future.

As for the bolded bit I will say that to dismiss reverse racism is just as folly as to dismiss racism in general.  Both are out there. Now, while I don't agree with much of what Limbaugh says (granted I fairly rarely listen to part of his show when I'm bored) I sincerely believe it is ignorance to think he is truly a racist.  Limbaugh is no more racist than Obama is - both invoke race for the sake of political maneuvering but neither do so hatefully or with malicious intent towards any race.  I disagree with both of them for invoking race for political purposes but unfortunately the race card is a part of politics today and both sides use it regularly.
To Each Man, Responsibility