you still dont know what 'serial killer' means.
Originally posted by long pig
White gangs.
Lol.There are a few, almost all are in prison and or very few members. A few thousand. Mostly to stay safe from the other gangs. Compared to the millions of those in black and mexican gangs. You've got thousands of hitmen who've killed dozens of people each. They are serial killers.
the statistics nemebro posted relate to actual serial killers, and have nothing to do with your laughably ignorant and easily dismissible assertions.
...but please, continue embarrassing yourself.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Your right. Black on Black crime is a highly ignored subject by our media. I mean this kind of thing and worse happens every day and it never gets any attention in the media. [/B]
I have to agree here, and the thing is..it's no surprise why the media isn't covering this as much. But where is the looting and burning and cries of black lives matter? That would be my question.
The truth is because black lives do not matter. That is not a thing I personally think, but what seems to be the truth is that politics matters more then anything else, not lives and not real issues that do far more damage to communities.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you still dont know what 'serial killer' means.the statistics nemebro posted relate to actual serial killers, and have nothing to do with your laughably ignorant and easily dismissible assertions.
...but please, continue embarrassing yourself.
Originally posted by red g jacks
it's an opinion, fine. i'd say it's the more reasonable opinion. i disbelieve the police because the police almost never say a black on white attack is racial and they have no other motive that they want to propose as an alternative to the racial motive. just "move on folks there's nothing to see here." and keep in mind this all happened in the contexts of a city that was buzzing with racially charged energy after a high profile racially charged case of a cop shooting a black guy, that of course the media picked up on immediately despite there being no evidence at all that the shooting was either unjust or racially motivated.what does this even mean? it was wrapped in the public consciousness as part of the racial debate because that's the angle the media chose to run with. zimmerman, despite being hispanic, was portrayed as a white man. and trayvon, despite being 17 years old with the physique of a grown man, was portrayed as a child.
then the media is stupid. because racists in the hood don't give a shit if your name sounds american or not. and the fact that the murder was a brutal beating with hammers rather than a shooting once again has nothing to do with whether or not it was racially motivated. in the LA riots after the rodney king case whites were similarly dragged out of their cars and beaten by black rioters.
i'd note that this claim that the media only cares about american sounding names and gun deaths is like, just your opinion, man. and it's not a particularly smart or well informed opinion, as far as i'm concerned. also, i'm willing to wager you've never stepped foot inside an american hood in your entire life.
When it comes to irrelevant things, that last sentence is pretty much at the top. As it happens, I have, but not for very long. You saying you don't think my position is smart and informed really just seems like you saying that you don't like a view that disagrees with your own. It's not actual engagement with the argument.
You think your opinion is more reasonable- ok. But the press doesn't. Your original contention is that the killing was clearly racial. You are not agreed with. They would have reported it more if they did think that, and it is not generally seen in that way.
For an example of white victim bias, look up Missing White Woman syndrome, and take a look at this link:
http://mije.org/mmcsi/criminal-justice/white-crime-victims-favored-mainstream-media-reports
You may well think the media is stupid, but that is not a point I am contending; I am simply saying how it is as part of a refutation of the OP's contention.
I didn't say the shooting vs. hammers thing was anything to do with racial motivation (nor did I say the name was, though you seem to think I did). I said it was to do with how interested the media was. Guns trump beatings, American sounding names get more viewers and readers than foreign ones.
You're wrong about Trayvon Martin being pushed by the media as a racial thing. The media really only became interested in the case after the lawyers for the family went for the racial angle once Zimmerman's past activities had come to light. People have a false memory here that the intense frenzy started at once- actually it was about two weeks after the death; before that it was confined mostly to Florida news.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
When it comes to irrelevant things, that last sentence is pretty much at the top. As it happens, I have, but not for very long. You saying you don't think my position is smart and informed really just seems like you saying that you don't like a view that disagrees with your own. It's not actual engagement with the argument.You think your opinion is more reasonable- ok. But the press doesn't. Your original contention is that the killing was clearly racial. You are not agreed with. They would have reported it more if they did think that, and it is not generally seen in that way.
For an example of white victim bias, look up Missing White Woman syndrome, and take a look at this link:
http://mije.org/mmcsi/criminal-justice/white-crime-victims-favored-mainstream-media-reports
You may well think the media is stupid, but that is not a point I am contending; I am simply saying how it is as part of a refutation of the OP's contention.
I didn't say the shooting vs. hammers thing was anything to do with racial motivation (nor did I say the name was, though you seem to think I did). I said it was to do with how interested the media was. Guns trump beatings, American sounding names get more viewers and readers than foreign ones.
You're wrong about Trayvon Martin being pushed by the media as a racial thing. The media really only became interested in the case after the lawyers for the family went for the racial angle once Zimmerman's past activities had come to light. People have a false memory here that the intense frenzy started at once- actually it was about two weeks after the death; before that it was confined mostly to Florida news.
Originally posted by Ushgarakto me, the narrative is specifically that white racists are persecuting black people... that is why the media didn't pick that story up.
When it comes to irrelevant things, that last sentence is pretty much at the top. As it happens, I have, but not for very long. You saying you don't think my position is smart and informed really just seems like you saying that you don't like a view that disagrees with your own. It's not actual engagement with the argument.You think your opinion is more reasonable- ok. But the press doesn't. Your original contention is that the killing was clearly racial. You are not agreed with. They would have reported it more if they did think that, and it is not generally seen in that way.
For an example of white victim bias, look up Missing White Woman syndrome, and take a look at this link:
http://mije.org/mmcsi/criminal-justice/white-crime-victims-favored-mainstream-media-reports
You may well think the media is stupid, but that is not a point I am contending; I am simply saying how it is as part of a refutation of the OP's contention.
I didn't say the shooting vs. hammers thing was anything to do with racial motivation (nor did I say the name was, though you seem to think I did). I said it was to do with how interested the media was. Guns trump beatings, American sounding names get more viewers and readers than foreign ones.
You're wrong about Trayvon Martin being pushed by the media as a racial thing. The media really only became interested in the case after the lawyers for the family went for the racial angle once Zimmerman's past activities had come to light. People have a false memory here that the intense frenzy started at once- actually it was about two weeks after the death; before that it was confined mostly to Florida news.
the idea that the media would've cared more if a gun was used is curious to me, really. i'm thinking this might be in your mind more because of your britishness. because shootings happen every single day in this country and the vast majority of them don't get any sort of national attention and a lot of them get very little local attention as well.
i have a really hard time believing that if lets say following the oj trial... a group of white thugs beating a black man to death with a hammer wouldn't be picked up as another example of a white lynch mob. the brutality involved makes the story a lot juicier than some random shooting.
also the last line, while maybe improper or whatever, has a lot to do with our discussion, imo. because if you were around american black ghettos for any extended period of time i gather you would have less trouble believing that the random white guy who got beat to death for no reason was racially motivated.
edit - with regard to trayvon, you can take the word "immediately" out... my core point wasn't about how quick the press was but rather how distorted their narrative was.
the fact that they got this spin from the prosecutors doesn't change the fact that they took it and ran with it using dishonest tactics like calling a hispanic man white and using older photos of trayvon when he was younger etc
edit- going back to the hammer case and idea that if a gun was used it would gain more traction... it occurs to me that the opposite is true. because if it was just a random shooting you might think he got crossed up in some gang shit or something like that. but when a mob of kids go out and beat a random person to death... that's a crime of passion. and given the context of when and where it happened, namely in a black hood that was buzzing with racial tension shortly after mike brown got shot.. i mean just connect the dots
Originally posted by Surtur
I have to agree here, and the thing is..it's no surprise why the media isn't covering this as much. But where is the looting and burning and cries of black lives matter? That would be my question.The truth is because black lives do not matter. That is not a thing I personally think, but what seems to be the truth is that politics matters more then anything else, not lives and not real issues that do far more damage to communities.
Black Lives Matter to every one except Black People. Or maybe its Only Blacks should be allowed to kill Blacks!
Originally posted by NemeBro
This is actually true, though it's apparently a fairly recent phenomenon.Over half of all US serial killers in the past two decades have been black.
I do wonder, as far as the 2000 - now stats are concerned, how many haven't been caught yet. There's a huge drop off at the end there.
Originally posted by red g jacks
the fact that they got this spin from the prosecutors doesn't change the fact that they took it and ran with it using dishonest tactics like calling a hispanic man white and using older photos of trayvon when he was younger etcedit- going back to the hammer case and idea that if a gun was used it would gain more traction... it occurs to me that the opposite is true. because if it was just a random shooting you might think he got crossed up in some gang shit or something like that. but when a mob of kids go out and beat a random person to death... that's a crime of passion. and given the context of when and where it happened, namely in a black hood that was buzzing with racial tension shortly after mike brown got shot.. i mean just connect the dots
I think you're underestimating the "justice served vs not served" angle on this issue though. There wouldn't be much controversy since the perpetrators are being dealt with as best they can. There's no complete formula to these things, but it's a certainly a factor.
Originally posted by StyleTime
There's no complete formula to these things, but it's a certainly a factor.
Roof's case also has strong evidence supporting a racist agenda. This is another factor that contributes to his case's "newsworthiness." You're doing the very thing you're accusing us of: seeing what you want to see.
Originally posted by StyleTimehere's the problem... if you reversed the races then the story would've had legs. the story isn't injustice... so bringing up the lack of injustice is just a deflection. the story isn't a gun story... so bringing up the lack of guns is yet another deflection. the story is a racist mob beating a man to death. that kind of story absolutely has the potential to be "controversial," which is why fringe sources like infowars picked up on it. the mainstream media ignored it because it clashed with the white on black narrative that they are trying to push. also, maybe they are afraid people would recognize that the man very likely died as a direct result of the racially charged propaganda campaigns that the media was engaged in regarding the mike brown case.... which means that his blood is basically on their hands
Not sure how to make that more clear to you. I didn't say that is the only factor. Controversy gets coverage, and certain factors contribute to a story's ability to stir that controversy.
Roof's case also has strong evidence supporting a racist agenda. This is another factor that contributes to his case's "newsworthiness." You're doing the very thing you're accusing us of: seeing what you want to see.yea, every time i call someone out on something i tend to get the "no you" response.
but you're wrong. i honestly don't want to see white people being murdered for racial reasons. i don't want any stories that are going to spur racial tension getting a lot of attention tbh. i want us to get along honestly. i'm just calling a spade a spade.
Originally posted by red g jacks
here's the problem... if you reversed the races then the story would've had legs. the story isn't injustice... so bringing up the lack of injustice is just a deflection. the story isn't a gun story... so bringing up the lack of guns is yet another deflection. the story is a racist mob beating a man to death. that kind of story absolutely has the potential to be "controversial," which is why fringe sources like infowars picked up on it. the mainstream media ignored it because it clashed with the white on black narrative that they are trying to push. also, maybe they are afraid people would recognize that the man very likely died as a direct result of the racially charged propaganda campaigns that the media was engaged in regarding the mike brown case.... which means that his blood is basically on their handsyea, every time i call someone out on something i tend to get the "no you" response.
but you're wrong. i honestly don't want to see white people being murdered for racial reasons. i don't want any stories that are going to spur racial tension getting a lot of attention tbh. i want us to get along honestly. i'm just calling a spade a spade.
Well, you say things like "you see things you want to see"...which can be applied to nearly anything ever. It's not particularly useful.
I'd like for everyone to get along too.
Originally posted by StyleTimei'm assuming that, yea. i think it's a pretty sound assumption. i'd say it's no less speculative than the idea that the trayvon shooting was racially charged, and the media had no problem at all covering that speculation extensively.
You're assuming the story would've gained attention were the races reversed. That's speculation. You keep comparing it to other stories, and I pointed out how those stories differed. Sometimes it's race. Sometimes it's guns. Sometimes it's injustice in general. It's a not a deflection, so much as me pointing out what actually happened in these scenarios vs your speculation on what might've happened in hypothetical scenarios.Well, you say things like "you see things you want to see"...which can be applied to nearly anything ever. It's not particularly useful.
I'd like for everyone to get along too.
you're assuming that the "factors" you brought up are the real reason the story didn't have legs. you're assuming that ideological bias has no role in what stories get pushed.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm assuming that, yea. i think it's a pretty sound assumption. i'd say it's no less speculative than the idea that the trayvon shooting was racially charged, and the media had no problem at all covering that speculation extensively.you're assuming that the "factors" you brought up are the real reason the story didn't have legs. you're assuming that ideological bias has no role in what stories get pushed.
Never said ideological bias had no role. I pointed out the differences between the actual the stories, and the hypothetical one. In fact, I said there's no complete formula for these things.
Originally posted by red g jacks
that's my point, though. the media will humor such speculation when it's the classic white on black narrative being pushed, as they did with trayvon and mike brown and so on and so on..but when the roles are reversed suddenly you need a manifesto or something
Originally posted by red g jacks
that's my point, though. the media will humor such speculation when it's the classic white on black narrative being pushed, as they did with trayvon and mike brown and so on and so on..but when the roles are reversed suddenly you need a manifesto or something
It was just another tragedy as far as the world is concerned. The killers were caught, no evidence of newsworthy motivations(race-war, religious fanatacism, etc), no celebrities(they always get coverage). It just doesn't sync up with most stories that make headlines.
There are actually white-on-black crimes that don't make headlines too.
but i'm not talking about the "killer goes unpunished" angle of the trayvon case... i'm talking about the racial angle. there are plenty of examples of lawful homicides that get no national press... the trayvon case had legs primarily because of the racial aspect.
as for evidence of motivations... i would say don't be so quick to write off circumstantial evidence. keep in mind that there is literally no official motive for this crime, as far as the police are willing to state. it would be different if they had a plausible counter story, but they don't.
just be honest. if a gang of white kids beat a black kid to death in a city that was on edge after a racially charged court case... regardless of whether the murder was actually racially motivated or not... you don't think the media would pick up on that and start another national discussion on racism and all that?
if you don't see my point there then we should just drop this discussion cause we simply won't see eye to eye