Is this biased reporting?

[Chaerophon]

The problem is that the highest levels of black leadership in America (and I mean leaders of blacks, not black leaders) have on countless occasions condoned (or at least excused) rioting as a legitimate form of protest. You have a situation where at times people feel on a national level that they don't get justice because of their skin color, and this is how they respond.

**cough** gross generalization **cough**

WTF. What exactly IS a leader of blacks, if I may ask? Choose your words more carefully, friend; you are generalizing across a diverse community. Perhaps I ought to do the same. Given the faulty induction of your example, one could just as easily say that the highest levels of 'white' leadership in America condone cross-burnings and segregation.

[Nystul]

**cough** gross generalization **cough**

WTF.  What exactly IS a leader of blacks, if I may ask?  Choose your words more carefully, friend; you are generalizing across a diverse community.  Perhaps I ought to do the same.  Given the faulty induction of your example, one could just as easily say that the highest levels of 'white' leadership in America condone cross-burnings and segregation.
[right][snapback]92286[/snapback][/right]

You could just as easily say that, but it doesn't really wash. The levels of political acceptance aren't nearly equivalent in my lifetime. There is no white caucus in Congress, per se. But there is a black one, and it has been led by people who were pretty apologetic about things like the L.A. riots. Similar story for the NAACP, and even the Nation of Islam is more generally accepted as a legitimate organization than any white supremacist group as far as I can tell. It may be that there are many white leaders in Congress, the White House, or the lobbies, who were separatists 40 years ago, but they no longer have a public voice to speak on that particular issue. If they did still have that level of credibility to speak favorably about cross-burnings, we'd be in a full scale civil war by now.

But if you mean to say that a large portion of black Americans don't condone the type of thing that just happened in Toledo, then you are certainly correct. I am merely saying that the people who rioted may feel justified in doing so on the basis of being the opressed race. Or then again, perhaps they were just thugs looking to steal something, and the planned protest gave them the perfect opportunity to get away with it. Or maybe they were mindless sheep following some drunk guys and things got carried away (that's how riots here in Columbus always seem to happen).

Unfortunately, the riots play right into the hands of the neo-Nazi group, regardless. The group was supposedly protesting violence by black gangs against white citizens, the protest induced riots against white business owners, and the mayor is blaming it on gangs. It gives them a sense of credibility as a basis on which to recruit.

[Minionman]

Unfortunately, the riots play right into the hands of the neo-Nazi group, regardless.  The group was supposedly protesting violence by black gangs against white citizens, the protest induced riots against white business owners, and the mayor is blaming it on gangs.  It gives them a sense of credibility as a basis on which to recruit.
[right][snapback]92290[/snapback][/right]

That's another amazing point. Every time I hear about one of these Nazi demonstrations, somebody important in wherever they are held tells people to just stay home and not do anything nutty, but there are always some people who apparently can't figure this out, even after many, many of these types of white supremicist stuff.

[Occhidiangela]

Unfortunately, the riots play right into the hands of the neo-Nazi group, regardless.  The group was supposedly protesting violence by black gangs against white citizens, the protest induced riots against white business owners, and the mayor is blaming it on gangs.  It gives them a sense of credibility as a basis on which to recruit.
[right][snapback]92290[/snapback][/right]

Political trolling. Given the comments above on the rhetoric used by some black leaders, the ground is fertile to follow a acting out scenario, and the generation's worth of damned foolishness that blames society for such acting out has in some cases benumbed people to the fact that a riot is NOT a First Ammendment protected activity. It is unlawful.

Occhi

[whyBish]

It is our nature to destroy each other and our selves.
[right][snapback]92250[/snapback][/right]

I'd be happy to debate that, but not in the middle of this thread.

[Eirinjas]

And you seem eager to divert the question. Instead of focusing on media bias you want to imply Im racist.
[right][snapback]92276[/snapback][/right]

Did you happen to think that maybe the issue of color had nothing to do with the story in the eyes of the reporters covering it? And if they did deliberately omit that the rioters were black, so what? This ultimately comes down to ignorance. Ignorance not just in the form of racism, but also, that the planned march acted like a pressure release valve that allowed those on the bootlicking end of the economic scale an excuse to justify the letting off of steam in the only way small minds know how - through violence and destruction. When you see poor people rioting and looting - thank capitalism. In a just system people would feel secure enough in their standing in society to weather storms in a more thoughful, dignified manner.

Oh, and did you see the rioting and looting that happened at Woodstock a few years back? All white college age kids who must have come from well-to-do enough backgrounds to afford the time and money to buy tickets and get there. What set them off? The same thing that set off the people in Toledo - the sense of that they are victims of a system - in both cases Capitalism was the system they were ultimately rebelling against.

[Occhidiangela]

Did you happen to think that maybe the issue of color had nothing to do with the story in the eyes of the reporters covering it? And if they did deliberately omit that the rioters were black, so what? This ultimately comes down to ignorance. Ignorance not just in the form of racism, but also, that the planned march acted like a pressure release valve that allowed those on the bootlicking end of the economic scale an excuse to justify the letting off of steam in the only way small minds know how - through violence and destruction. When you see poor people rioting and looting - thank capitalism. In a just system people would feel secure enough in their standing in society to weather storms in a more thoughful, dignified manner.

Oh, and did you see the rioting and looting that happened at Woodstock a few years back? All white college age kids who must have come from well-to-do enough backgrounds to afford the time and money to buy tickets and get there. What set them off? The same thing that set off the people in Toledo - the sense of that they are victims of a system - in both cases Capitalism was the system they were ultimately rebelling against.
[right][snapback]93304[/snapback][/right]

Some people look for any excuse to act out, and to excuse it. It looks like you have your excuse pre-packaged. "It's capitalism's fault, therefore, excess is excused." The point of view you presented is part of the problem, not part of the solution. There are plenty of people on "capitalism's" wrong end who don't act out, but who gut it out, and work to over come life's obstacles and inherent unfairness.

Pardon me while I gag at your transparent lack of perspective.

Did you ever hear the sarcastic line by Monty Python, in "The Church Police" sketch?

"It's a fair cop, but society's to blame."

"Right, we'll charge him {society} too."

I wonder: do you have the wit to get that line?

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I wonder: do you have the wit to get that line?
[right][snapback]93314[/snapback][/right]

If he doubles his, he will. :)

--Pete

[Eirinjas]

Some people look for any excuse to act out, and to excuse it.  It looks like you have your excuse pre-packaged.  "It's capitalism's fault, therefore, excess is excused."  The point of view you presented is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  There are plenty of people on "capitalism's" wrong end who don't act out, but who gut it out, and work to over come life's obstacles and inherent unfairness.

Pardon me while I gag at your transparent lack of perspective.

Did you ever hear the sarcastic line by Monty Python, in "The Church Police" sketch?

"It's a fair cop, but society's to blame."

"Right, we'll charge him {society} too."

I wonder: do you have the wit to get that line?

Occhi
[right][snapback]93314[/snapback][/right]

Who said it was an excuse? I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was the cause. Causation - why it is a thing happens. That's not the same thing as an excuse. For all your love of the wit of Monty Python, you're still too dim to see the difference. No, you'd much rather reduce the outcome of a system that oppresses people to the category of "personal responsibility" and riotous outbreaks such as this is narrow-mindedly, but justifiably in your view, reduced to race.

[Occhidiangela]

Who said it was an excuse? I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was the cause. Causation - why it is a thing happens. That's not the same thing as an excuse. For all your love of the wit of Monty Python, you're still too dim to see the difference. No, you'd much rather reduce the outcome of a system that oppresses people to the category of "personal responsibility" and riotous outbreaks such as this is narrow-mindedly, but justifiably in your view, reduced to race.
[right][snapback]93344[/snapback][/right]

Nice try.

Since the system you refer to, the system as it exists, is not in fact Capitalist -- no matter how much the free market wonks drone on about how the joys of capitalism in some ideal form. The system is in reality a fusion of capitalist, socialist, humanist, secularist, realist, and for that matter theocrat, norms and principles. Your "capitalist causation" is dead on arrival, at present. If creeping Globalism is not countered effectively in the next generation, the "system" as you describe it may indeed come to pass as Capitalist, for a short period, before it devolves into either anarchy or feudalism. (Would that be neo feudalism, I wonder?)

Bogus "cause and effect" models such as what you are trying to pass off are excuse based rationalization. The use of a reductionist facet of the disembodied "system" as a cause for actions by humans who seek rationalization, excuse, to act out violently in a society that generally attempts to subscribe to the rule of law is a pathetic attempt to construct cause and effect.

Take your "causation" wheeze and go back to learning what words mean before you try again. Choice on how to act is still open to those not seeking an excuse to act out.

Not sure where you got your red herring in re race or color, but that his your invention in this conversation, not mine. Dont' try putting words in my mouth. I'll spit them at you.

Occhi

[Eirinjas]

Nice try. 

Since the system you refer to, the system as it exists, is not in fact Capitalist -- no matter how much the free market wonks drone on about how the joys of capitalism in some ideal form.  The system is in reality a fusion of capitalist, socialist, humanist, secularist, realist, and for that matter theocrat, norms and principles.  Your "capitalist causation" is dead on arrival, at present.  If creeping Globalism is not countered effectively in the next generation, the "system" as you describe it may indeed come to pass as Capitalist, for a short period, before it devolves into either anarchy or feudalism.  (Would that be neo feudalism, I wonder?)

Bogus "cause and effect" models such as what you are trying to pass off are excuse based rationalization.  The use of a reductionist facet of the disembodied "system" as a cause for actions by humans who seek rationalization, excuse, to act out violently in a society that generally attempts to subscribe to the rule of law is a pathetic attempt to construct cause and effect. 

Take your "causation" wheeze and go back to learning what words mean before you try again.  Choice on how to act is still open to those not seeking an excuse to act out. 

Not sure where you got your red herring in re race or color, but that his your invention in this conversation, not mine.  Dont' try putting words in my mouth.  I'll spit them at you.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93350[/snapback][/right]

This system is fundamentally Capitalist. I's not Socialist, it's not Humanist, and it's not Democratic. The freedoms and privileges we do have are a legacy earned through years of struggle by activists who were Humanist, Socialist, Communist, etc. They are not gifts from on high, and they are not part of the system of our government and society by fundamental design. The system was fought and forced to concede through fear of greater social upheaval.

You can ask; if the system is comprised of Humanistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why do we allow children to starve, drop bombs on countries that are completely defenseless, allow the propagation of land mines, and any number of other attrocious obscenities? I'll take it you just don't understand the qualities of Humanism.

If the system is comprised of Socialistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why are we the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, allow corporations all the rights and guarantees as an individual with none of the responsibility (you go bankrupt - you're on your own; a corporation faces any crisis and it gets subsidized with taxpayer money from the state and federal governments), allow companies to pay CEO's millions while they lay off thousands of workers, cut benefits, cut hours, and allow them to ship jobs overseas? That's the VERY antithesis of Socialism. Clearly, you have no idea what Socialism is.

We'd do a thousand times better under a system of Anarchism than we would under our present system of Capitalism, but again, it just goes to show how little you know about anything at all even despite your winded, pompous, insulting, and condescending manner.

[Tal]

This system is fundamentally Capitalist. I's not Socialist, it's not Humanist, and it's not Democratic. The freedoms and privileges we do have are a legacy earned through years of struggle by activists who were Humanist, Socialist, Communist, etc. They are not gifts from on high, and they are not part of the system of our government and society by fundamental design. The system was fought and forced to concede through fear of greater social upheaval.

You can ask; if the system is comprised of Humanistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why do we allow children to starve, drop bombs on countries that are completely defenseless, allow the propagation of land mines, and any number of other attrocious obscenities? I'll take it you just don't understand the qualities of Humanism.

If the system is comprised of Socialistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why are we the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, allow corporations all the rights and guarantees as an individual with none of the responsibility (you go bankrupt - you're on your own; a corporation faces any crisis and it gets subsidized with taxpayer money from the state and federal governments), allow companies to pay CEO's millions while they lay off thousands of workers, cut benefits, cut hours, and allow them to ship jobs overseas? That's the VERY antithesis of Socialism. Clearly, you have no idea what Socialism means.

We'd do a thousand times better under a system of Anarchism than we would under our present system of Capitalism, but again, it just goes to show how little you know about anything at all even despite your winded, pompous, insulting, and  condescending manner.
[right][snapback]93361[/snapback][/right]

I'm not a moderator on this forum but I would like to remind all parties to attack the idea not the poster. Nothing stymies a honest debate like innuendo, accusations and insults.

[Taem]

Did you happen to think that maybe the issue of color had nothing to do with the story in the eyes of the reporters covering it?
[right][snapback]93304[/snapback][/right]

All white college age kids who must have come from well-to-do enough backgrounds to afford the time and money to buy tickets and get there.
[right][snapback]93304[/snapback][/right]

This ultimately comes down to ignorance.
[right][snapback]93304[/snapback][/right]

Eirinjas, what you said in these paragraphs has caught my attention.

Perhaps the issue of color didn't have anything to do with "the story", however your example of Woodstock is very poor. First of all, you contradict yourself in the first paragraph stating that reporters might not of seen race as an issue, then you go on with an example (presumably you got your information from the same everyone else did, a.k.a. the media, unless you were there personally) of white people rioting; how contravene.

Secondly, I personally know people who attended said "Woodstock" concert a "few years back," and most of these friends were Mexican. Some of my good friends at the time were broke-as-a-joke. By generalizing this incident, you my friend are no better than whoever you were pointing your finger at! Perhaps race was at issue, or perhaps not! Regardless, it is how you went about showing off your example that has gotten under my skin!

http://www.cmcstudents.com/classic/woodstock.html

Regarding the initial discussion, I'd rather stay mute until I knew more facts.

[Minionman]

This system is fundamentally Capitalist. I's not Socialist, it's not Humanist, and it's not Democratic. The freedoms and privileges we do have are a legacy earned through years of struggle by activists who were Humanist, Socialist, Communist, etc. They are not gifts from on high, and they are not part of the system of our government and society by fundamental design. The system was fought and forced to concede through fear of greater social upheaval.

You can ask; if the system is comprised of Humanistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why do we allow children to starve, drop bombs on countries that are completely defenseless, allow the propagation of land mines, and any number of other attrocious obscenities? I'll take it you just don't understand the qualities of Humanism.

If the system is comprised of Socialistic qualities as a fundamental aspect then why are we the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, allow corporations all the rights and guarantees as an individual with none of the responsibility (you go bankrupt - you're on your own; a corporation faces any crisis and it gets subsidized with taxpayer money from the state and federal governments), allow companies to pay CEO's millions while they lay off thousands of workers, cut benefits, cut hours, and allow them to ship jobs overseas? That's the VERY antithesis of Socialism. Clearly, you have no idea what Socialism is.

We'd do a thousand times better under a system of Anarchism than we would under our present system of Capitalism,
[right][snapback]93361[/snapback][/right]

You're jumping a little too quickly on the "ism's" and "fundamentally" too quickly to get what happens in society. Some people do in fact make decisions to support of oppose something because of an ism, but a lot of people mainly seem to support something because they think it will work better for them, or that it will help some group, or they have just one particular thing they want and will work with whoever can get them that thing. Because of this, a society will very easily become a mishmash of things that different ism's would support.

As for being "fundamentally" something, what exactly does "funadmentally" something mean? I could come up with any system that is just a mishmash of different parts, perhaps I suggest free food for everyone, no health care, regulations on sex related morality, lots of tariffs, a medium sized military, money support for religions, and lots of control by smaller state type things. How would someone sort out what it "funadmenatlly" was? Assuming I could get the right groups working with me, I could possibly get all these into action.

To use an analogy (this might kill the argument, but I really like it), think of "nature vs. nurture" arguments you may have heard of. Almost all processes that go on in life are a combination of these two, so arguing about which is the "fundamental" cause would be pretty pointless, as both have effects. If anything, they are "fundamentally" chemicals reacting with each other, and/or electricity in nerves, and/or forces on something's body. Maybe some things are more effectecd by genes, some by embryo chemicals that happen to be there, and some by environment, but that doesn't mean they are "fundamentally" something.

The point of all this is that you can't go out and blame "capitalism" for something that exists in a society just because that society fits a lot with some "prerfect capitalist" society. You could be dealing with something from some other philosophy, or more likely you are dealing with something that has nothing to do with some governing phikosophy, just some feelings people have.

[Occhidiangela]

We'd do a thousand times better under a system of Anarchism than we would under our present system of Capitalism, but again, it just goes to show how little you know about anything at all even despite your winded, pompous, insulting, and  condescending manner.
[right][snapback]93361[/snapback][/right]

The system as it stands today is a fusion of Enlightenment ideas and ideals put into practice, which always suffers compared to theory, and which you, in your narrow, reductionist view choose to characterize as Capitalist -- an intellectually dishonest and fundementally false descriptive to anyone who peels back even one layer of the onion. Nothing is that pure.

The system is comparatively more Capitalist than Socialist, when viewed next to modern day Sweden, and comparatively more Socialist than Capitalist when compared to the US in 1895 or the U.K. in the Victorian era. In those days, the various robber barons and/or aristocrats worked relatively unfettered by regulation, State/Federal regulation, which grew in the 20th century as the influence of Socialism moderated the Capitalist excesses of the 19th century. The system is far more Humanist than Theocratic, based on our Constitution.

You lose, again, and will continue to do so until you get the other half.

For you to assert that a nation-state would be better off under Anarchy is a sign of your utter ignorance of what Anarchy is, and what it leads to. For you to excuse acting out violently, in a riot, as a suitable response to social unfairness is an insult to the patience and lawful struggle of lawful activists such as Rosa Parks, who recently passed away and who took the moral high ground (see my much earlier comment) and worked at making a difference and overcoming a social obstacle. That work was done within the context of lawful activity. A riot is the lazy criminal's response to the prospect of having to work to make a change.

Go to the back woods of Zaire, perhaps Sierra Leone or Liberia (heck, parts of Afghnistan or Iraq will do nicelyl) and experience Anarchy.

While you are at it, stay there. With any luck, you will get shot and die, and the world's aggregate ignorance will decrease slightly.

May I suggest http://www.travelocity.com/ for your airpline reservations?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Secondly, I personally know people who attended said "Woodstock" concert a "few years back," and most of these friends were Mexican. Some of my good friends at the time were broke-as-a-joke. By generalizing this incident, you my friend are no better than whoever you were pointing your finger at! Perhaps race was at issue, or perhaps not! Regardless, it is how you went about showing off your example that has gotten under my skin!

http://www.cmcstudents.com/classic/woodstock.html

Regarding the initial discussion, I'd rather stay mute until I knew more facts.
[right][snapback]93372[/snapback][/right]

Well played. :D

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not a moderator on this forum but I would like to remind all parties to attack the idea not the poster.  Nothing stymies a honest debate like innuendo, accusations and insults.
[right][snapback]93365[/snapback][/right]

Tal: Some donkeys need a swat with a 2 x 4. I provided one.

Occhi

[Griselda]

Tal: Some donkeys need a swat with a 2 x 4.  I provided one. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]93377[/snapback][/right]

And here I was thinking we had made it through this thread without it devolving.

[Guest]

Dear insulting one.

Despite how little I think of your ideas, Im really not interested in talking to you about them.

Im more interested in discussing is it fair for a reporter to be biased if he/she feels a moral compulsion to be biased.

[Chaerophon]

I have social democratic tendencies. I agree with your sentiment that there is little socialism in the trends of American domestic policy.

Your comments smack of student activism, and while I'm sure that they are heartfelt, I would suggest that you reflect a bit more before adopting such a view without compromise. Your general sentiments about capitalistic excess are worth exploration - unfortunately, your all or nothing approach has been done to death...a century ago. Anarchism is not a viable alternative - In America, neither is outright socialism. I'm not sure what the answer is - perhaps democratic reform within the liberal paradigm could lead to more humanistic attitudes towards the weak and poor? It's an open question whether the strict constructionists in America would ever accept that. What I DO know is that the answer is not simply the application of another one-size-fits-all 'ideology implant,' as you seem to be implying ought to be the case.