The Media’s Obama Protection Society

PrintSmith wrote: Racism doesn't have a situational definition Z. This perpetual habit the left has of attempting to redefine words to mean what they say they mean is, has been, and always will be utter nonsense. The definition by which one is determined to be racists applies to everyone, everywhere. Non-hispanic whites are a minority in many parts of the world, a majority in many others. Whether one happens to be a minority or not in the area of the world in which they live has no bearing on whether or not they are racists. How they view and treat those of a race other than their own is the determining factor. That is the only means by which people can be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

You're right, PrintSmith, racism doesn't have a situational definition. However, racism does exist. That's something those of your more "conservative" bent have arguably been in denial of, especially here in this country. And now, those of your more "conservative" bent are actually accusing people of color right here in the U.S. of being race baiters. To me, that's pretty ironic, and, arguably, moronic on its face.

Far too many have publicly stated they are sick and tired of the race baiting going on and even of hearing the word racism at all. When you say "content of character instead of the color of their skin", that's mighty high and moral sounding - an admirable goal which everyone should strive to achieve. But it's also, in my opinion, pretty disingenuous and naive (intentional or not) in that it denies a reality that few in the "white" community (general population) truly understand and/or are willing to look at realistically as minority groups struggle to have their voices even heard. Take the incident in Ferguson, MO, as just one example.

Denial of something's existence does not, by extension, mean it does not actually exist - witness climate change denial as one example - maelstrom in three...two...one...

Regarding racism:

thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ufqeuz/race-off

Jon Stewart, whether you like him or hate him, hits the nail on the head in this one as far as I'm concerned.

Each media outlet, whether small or large, will always have an agenda for their journalists to follow. Follow closely, or go find another job.

ZHawke wrote: You're right, PrintSmith, racism doesn't have a situational definition. However, racism does exist. That's something those of your more "conservative" bent have arguably been in denial of, especially here in this country. And now, those of your more "conservative" bent are actually accusing people of color right here in the U.S. of being race baiters. To me, that's pretty ironic, and, arguably, moronic on its face.

No one denies that racism exists Z. It's like poverty, it always has and always will exist. What is challenged by "those of your more 'conservative' bent" is the degree to which it exists in the Union today and the intentional actions by those of your more "progressive" bent to ensure that a racial divide not only continues to exist, but that it continues to expand.

ZHawke wrote: Far too many have publicly stated they are sick and tired of the race baiting going on and even of hearing the word racism at all. When you say "content of character instead of the color of their skin", that's mighty high and moral sounding - an admirable goal which everyone should strive to achieve. But it's also, in my opinion, pretty disingenuous and naive (intentional or not) in that it denies a reality that few in the "white" community (general population) truly understand and/or are willing to look at realistically as minority groups struggle to have their voices even heard. Take the incident in Ferguson, MO, as just one example.

You mean the incident where a cop shot someone who had physically assaulted him and attempted to take his service weapon from him, a person who had just committed a strong armed robbery? What has that to do with race Z? Judge the actions of the cop on the actions of the cop and the criminal by the actions of the criminal. That is the only road by which we can even hope to judge by the content of character instead of the color of skin. And it is here that Obama, and other "progressives", most clearly demonstrate their desire to ensure that racial division remains active and here that it is most clear that those flames are being stoked to make them hotter.

ZHawke wrote: Denial of something's existence does not, by extension, mean it does not actually exist - witness climate change denial as one example - maelstrom in three...two...one...

Here again you are in error. No one denies that the climate changes over time. What is challenged is the degree to which the human population affects that change or causes it to occur and our ability to alter its course.

PrintSmith wrote: No one denies that racism exists Z. It's like poverty, it always has and always will exist. What is challenged by "those of your more 'conservative' bent" is the degree to which it exists in the Union today and the intentional actions by those of your more "progressive" bent to ensure that a racial divide not only continues to exist, but that it continues to expand.

So, let me get this straight - you're saying degrees of magnitude are now valid? Regarding the rest, all one must do to get a more accurate picture of a racial "divide" being manipulated, encouraged, and expanding is listening to the talking heads on FOX News.

PrintSmith wrote: You mean the incident where a cop shot someone who had physically assaulted him and attempted to take his service weapon from him, a person who had just committed a strong armed robbery? What has that to do with race Z? Judge the actions of the cop on the actions of the cop and the criminal by the actions of the criminal. That is the only road by which we can even hope to judge by the content of character instead of the color of skin. And it is here that Obama, and other "progressives", most clearly demonstrate their desire to ensure that racial division remains active and here that it is most clear that those flames are being stoked to make them hotter.

No. I mean the incident in Ferguson, MO that is still being investigated and that has not found the cop in this incident innocent or guilty as of yet - at least that I've heard. The other part of that incident is the ongoing unrest in that community. I disagree that Obama, and other "progressives" are Stoking the flames of racism in Ferguson. The flames, according to what I saw, were smoldering beneath the surface already from what I've read about this community. It didn't take Obama or any other "progressives" to stoke any flames. They erupted into a conflagration in a community already "primed", if you will.

PrintSmith wrote: Here again you are in error. No one denies that the climate changes over time. What is challenged is the degree to which the human population affects that change or causes it to occur and our ability to alter its course.

Oh, I'd beg to differ on your assertion no one denies that climate changes over time. Plenty of folks out there who deny it. As to the rest, once again, now degrees of magnitude are valid?

What is needed is an accurate framing of the area of disagreement. When an inaccurate framing is intentionally used, polarization increases and with it distrust. Any person capable of reason agrees that racism exists Z. What the "progressive" alleges is that it is still predominant in the society in which we live. That is the source of the contention; not whether it exists at all, but whether or not it exists to the extent that the left wishes us to believe it does. So yes, the degree of magnitude is where the conflict resides. The same is true of climate change. The area of conflict isn't whether or not the climate changes, any person of reason accepts that it does. The area of conflict is whether or not our use of fossil fuels is wholly, or even largely, responsible for the change. Here again the "progressive" seeks a phrase which falsely frames the conflict with the use of "climate change denier", which suggests that those who don't agree with them deny that the climate changes at all, not that they disagree with the stated cause of the latest change.

As for Ferguson, if a majority of black people are governed by a majority of white people it is either because a majority of black people voted for those white people to govern them or they didn't care to have a say in who governed them. So if there is simmering unrest in that community it isn't because a remedy hasn't, or doesn't, exist, it's because those supposed victims haven't cared to address it and effect a change in how they are governed.

PrintSmith wrote: What is needed is an accurate framing of the area of disagreement. When an inaccurate framing is intentionally used, polarization increases and with it distrust. Any person capable of reason agrees that racism exists Z. What the "progressive" alleges is that it is still predominant in the society in which we live. That is the source of the contention; not whether it exists at all, but whether or not it exists to the extent that the left wishes us to believe it does. So yes, the degree of magnitude is where the conflict resides. The same is true of climate change. The area of conflict isn't whether or not the climate changes, any person of reason accepts that it does. The area of conflict is whether or not our use of fossil fuels is wholly, or even largely, responsible for the change. Here again the "progressive" seeks a phrase which falsely frames the conflict with the use of "climate change denier", which suggests that those who don't agree with them deny that the climate changes at all, not that they disagree with the stated cause of the latest change.

The same could be said conversely from the opposite perspective on every point you've made above.

PrintSmith wrote: As for Ferguson, if a majority of black people are governed by a majority of white people it is either because a majority of black people voted for those white people to govern them or they didn't care to have a say in who governed them. So if there is simmering unrest in that community it isn't because a remedy hasn't, or doesn't, exist, it's because those supposed victims haven't cared to address it and effect a change in how they are governed.

Supposition and conjecture on your part. The truth is the demographic makeup of Ferguson is thus (taken from Census.gov):

Population by Race

White 6,206
African American 14,297
Asian 103
American Indian and Alaska Native 80
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 4
Other 92
Identified by two or more 421

At first glance, the census data would appear to support your supposition. However, upon closer examination, one finds the demographics of the Ferguson Police do not represent the demographics of Ferguson, itself. Look it up. Furthermore, Police Department personnel are not "elected" to their positions.

On that note, I'm outta here to work outside. Too nice not to.

ZHawke wrote: Finally, third, from my perspective at least, for those of us of a "white" persuasion to apply the term "racism" to anyone of another minority segment of our population, including Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and any other minority populations living here smacks of what I consider to be reverse racism whether anyone acknowledges its existence or not. That's just me, though.

So, in your view a person of color cannot embrace ideals of racial supremacy?
Is The New Black Panther Party not racist?

OmniScience wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Finally, third, from my perspective at least, for those of us of a "white" persuasion to apply the term "racism" to anyone of another minority segment of our population, including Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and any other minority populations living here smacks of what I consider to be reverse racism whether anyone acknowledges its existence or not. That's just me, though.

So, in your view a person of color cannot embrace ideals of racial supremacy?
Is The New Black Panther Party not racist?

Doesn't even merit a response. So taken out of context and misdirected in intent as to be ridiculous on its face.

ZHawke wrote:

OmniScience wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Finally, third, from my perspective at least, for those of us of a "white" persuasion to apply the term "racism" to anyone of another minority segment of our population, including Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and any other minority populations living here smacks of what I consider to be reverse racism whether anyone acknowledges its existence or not. That's just me, though.

So, in your view a person of color cannot embrace ideals of racial supremacy?
Is The New Black Panther Party not racist?

Doesn't even merit a response. So taken out of context and misdirected in intent as to be ridiculous on its face.

What's out of context? I'm just trying to understand your third comment. Because I'm white I'm being a racist (or exhibiting 'reverse racism') if I suggest a minority, or group like the NBPP has a racist position?