Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
    Dreadlocks are disgusting and have no place in society.
    Well... thats racist...

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
    Dreadlocks are disgusting and have no place in society.
    I like them myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Dreadlocks are disgusting and have no place in society.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Must have been a slow news day for CNN.

    Justin Bieber is being accused of cultural appropriation over his hair, again

    Justin Bieber is facing backlash over his hair. Again.

    The pop star debuted some short dreadlocks this week, sparking cries of cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity. The outcry came four years after he was similarly criticized over wearing cornrows -- and, yes, dreadlocks.

    Dreadlocks are traditionally connected to the culture and identities of Black people, and wearing them is viewed by some as cultural appropriation.On social media some Black women called Bieber's hairstyle offensive and disrespectful and urged him to change it and apologize.

    Others defended him, saying he can wear his hair the way he wants.

    CNN has reached out to Bieber's representatives for comment.

    "Cultural appropriation is about the power dynamic. When people with power and privilege decide to 'validate' customs and traditions that oppressed people have long been marginalized for by saying 'This is the hot new thing,' then we have serious problems," writer and speaker Feminista Jones told CNN in 2016.

    The new criticism of Bieber's hair is just the latest cultural controversy involving the 27-year-old Canadian singer, who has long been accused of racial insensitivity. Bieber apologized in 2014 after videos surfaced showing him using the n-word and making a racist joke.

    His new album, "Justice," includes a track called "MLK Interlude" -- almost two minutes of a speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. King's daughter, Bernice King, tweeted her approval last month after Bieber expressed his support for social justice organizations, including the Martin Luther King Jr. Center.

    Bieber has said he is merely trying to amplify the civil rights leader's message -- but people on social media criticized the album's use of King's words.

    "I know that I cannot simply solve injustice by making music but I do know that if we all do our part by using our gifts to serve this planet and each other that we are that much closer to being united," Bieber tweeted before the album's release.

    Bieber is certainly not the only celebrity who's been accused of cultural appropriation over their hairstyle. Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner have also come under fire for rocking cornrows.

    In 2015, "Fashion Police" host Giuliana Rancic sparked criticism when she said that Disney star Zendaya Coleman's dreadlocks hairstyle "smells like patchouli oil ... or weed." She later apologized.

    Critics at the time said the incident highlighted how White celebrities are sometimes hailed as edgy for wearing ethnic hairstyles such as cornrows and dreadlocks while women of color are degraded for wearing their natural hair in similar styles.
    I think the radical black left just wants to take credit for EVERYTHING. America was “built” on their backs and Jesus was a Jew so he must be black...

    I have also seen people claim black people invented the lightbulb and all the famous inventors really just had slaves invent things for them and take credit for it.

    Everything a white man does is wrong/bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post
    Celts wore dreadlocks though...
    People are not only too sensitive, I think a lot go looking for things they can be outraged about to try and stir the pot. Back in the 60's & 70's the popular hair style for blacks was the afro. Guess what? White dudes and chicks started wearing afros. It wasn't because anyone was trying to demean a race. It was because they thought the blacks had something cool going on and wanted to be cool as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    San Fran Archbishop says priests should be denying communion to pro- abortion Catholics. Will be interesting to see if certain political and celebrity figures in California run into problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • GowerND11
    replied
    Celts wore dreadlocks though...

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Must have been a slow news day for CNN.

    Justin Bieber is being accused of cultural appropriation over his hair, again

    Justin Bieber is facing backlash over his hair. Again.

    The pop star debuted some short dreadlocks this week, sparking cries of cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity. The outcry came four years after he was similarly criticized over wearing cornrows -- and, yes, dreadlocks.

    Dreadlocks are traditionally connected to the culture and identities of Black people, and wearing them is viewed by some as cultural appropriation.On social media some Black women called Bieber's hairstyle offensive and disrespectful and urged him to change it and apologize.

    Others defended him, saying he can wear his hair the way he wants.

    CNN has reached out to Bieber's representatives for comment.

    "Cultural appropriation is about the power dynamic. When people with power and privilege decide to 'validate' customs and traditions that oppressed people have long been marginalized for by saying 'This is the hot new thing,' then we have serious problems," writer and speaker Feminista Jones told CNN in 2016.

    The new criticism of Bieber's hair is just the latest cultural controversy involving the 27-year-old Canadian singer, who has long been accused of racial insensitivity. Bieber apologized in 2014 after videos surfaced showing him using the n-word and making a racist joke.

    His new album, "Justice," includes a track called "MLK Interlude" -- almost two minutes of a speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. King's daughter, Bernice King, tweeted her approval last month after Bieber expressed his support for social justice organizations, including the Martin Luther King Jr. Center.

    Bieber has said he is merely trying to amplify the civil rights leader's message -- but people on social media criticized the album's use of King's words.

    "I know that I cannot simply solve injustice by making music but I do know that if we all do our part by using our gifts to serve this planet and each other that we are that much closer to being united," Bieber tweeted before the album's release.

    Bieber is certainly not the only celebrity who's been accused of cultural appropriation over their hairstyle. Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner have also come under fire for rocking cornrows.

    In 2015, "Fashion Police" host Giuliana Rancic sparked criticism when she said that Disney star Zendaya Coleman's dreadlocks hairstyle "smells like patchouli oil ... or weed." She later apologized.

    Critics at the time said the incident highlighted how White celebrities are sometimes hailed as edgy for wearing ethnic hairstyles such as cornrows and dreadlocks while women of color are degraded for wearing their natural hair in similar styles.
    Last edited by Irish#1; 04-28-2021, 08:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by ND88 View Post

    I understand what you’re saying and respect you have your views. In a perfect world, it might play out as you describe. But when the flag is flown, the anthem sung, the jet flyovers honored, we should be just as unified in those civil dignities as we should a human’s call to protest. The product on the field/court unifies us and provides the reprieve. Protest doesn’t negate the outcome of the sport. It sharpens the meaning and upholds the integrity of all involved.
    Respect yours as well. Here's the problem as I see it. Many of these protests are BS because they're selective. Kapernick was protesting the treatment of blacks in the U.S., yet he fully supported a communist regime in Cuba that was famous for violating civil liberties of its citizens. Cuba is known to imprison and execute people who protested against the government. LeBron James likes to protest the latest cause, but is as quiet as a lamb when it comes to China, because it effects his wallet. NBA ratings were in the tank last year due to all of the protest messages that covered the court, signage, uniforms, etc. People will accept and understand protesting. Those that like sports just don't want it during their 3 hour mental vacation from reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • ND88
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    Sports is a reprieve from politics. It's no coincidence that ratings drop when protest happens. I have no problem with any athlete protesting outside of the athletic event. Given their visibility, this gives them the ability and platform to protest outside of the athletic event that the rest of us don't enjoy.
    I understand what you’re saying and respect you have your views. In a perfect world, it might play out as you describe. But when the flag is flown, the anthem sung, the jet flyovers honored, we should be just as unified in those civil dignities as we should a human’s call to protest. The product on the field/court unifies us and provides the reprieve. Protest doesn’t negate the outcome of the sport. It sharpens the meaning and upholds the integrity of all involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by ND88 View Post

    You’re gonna sigh about this? Protest doesn’t change the outcome of the athletic results. (Unless you’re an otherworldly protest god like the great Jesse Owens. Then you destroy all kinds of racist stereotypes and bigotry with ease.)

    Of all the countries in the world, the United States should be emblematic of the value of protest. But it’s lost on many of its own citizens, because they don’t support the causes. Well, guess what? The Black Power salute wasn’t supported either during the ‘68 Olympics, but it resonated heavily in communities in our country and in the collective consciousness of our nation. The real issue of contention is that the causes being represented are ones you don’t like, and that’s fine, you’re entitled to your viewpoints. But just state it like it is. Sports are not victimized by protesting. It doesn’t add to the stress and the conflict for athletes to express their beliefs. The conflicts and injustice outside of sports add to the stress and anger of being a human being in any country. If you’re stressed by the causes being stood up for, then that’s your contention. Personally, I don’t agree with every protest ever protested, but I agree with the right to peaceful protest. It’s wholly American when America lives up to its ideals. The wish is that it is a peaceful global ideal.

    The real issue is that ESPN is just a boring-ass platform for sports. I was on my way to work the other day listening to Key, J and Zubin (or whatever the hell it’s called) thinking to myself this commentary really sucks.
    Sports is a reprieve from politics. It's no coincidence that ratings drop when protest happens. I have no problem with any athlete protesting outside of the athletic event. Given their visibility, this gives them the ability and platform to protest outside of the athletic event that the rest of us don't enjoy.

    Leave a comment:


  • ND88
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
    Olympic athletes promised legal support if they protest (espn.com)

    This is part of why so many of us HATE the entire PC/SJW thing so much. Sports is often an escape from the relentless stream of bad news, conflict, stress, and hostility we deal with all too often in life. ESPN all but ruined that escape for most of us over the past decade by becoming ESJWPN until finally reversing course to some extent. Now the Olympics is on the brink of being taken over by every athletic asshole on the planet with an agenda. The IOC has reaffirmed its long-standing ban on "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda'' on the field of play, medal podiums or official ceremonies... as well it should. No clothing related to any such groups or causes will be permitted. Good. Of course, activist groups are claiming THEIR pet cause should be the exception and be allowed, and are promising legal defense for athletes who are punished for breaking the IOC rules against such. Sigh.
    You’re gonna sigh about this? Protest doesn’t change the outcome of the athletic results. (Unless you’re an otherworldly protest god like the great Jesse Owens. Then you destroy all kinds of racist stereotypes and bigotry with ease.)

    Of all the countries in the world, the United States should be emblematic of the value of protest. But it’s lost on many of its own citizens, because they don’t support the causes. Well, guess what? The Black Power salute wasn’t supported either during the ‘68 Olympics, but it resonated heavily in communities in our country and in the collective consciousness of our nation. The real issue of contention is that the causes being represented are ones you don’t like, and that’s fine, you’re entitled to your viewpoints. But just state it like it is. Sports are not victimized by protesting. It doesn’t add to the stress and the conflict for athletes to express their beliefs. The conflicts and injustice outside of sports add to the stress and anger of being a human being in any country. If you’re stressed by the causes being stood up for, then that’s your contention. Personally, I don’t agree with every protest ever protested, but I agree with the right to peaceful protest. It’s wholly American when America lives up to its ideals. The wish is that it is a peaceful global ideal.

    The real issue is that ESPN is just a boring-ass platform for sports. I was on my way to work the other day listening to Key, J and Zubin (or whatever the hell it’s called) thinking to myself this commentary really sucks.
    Last edited by ND88; 04-24-2021, 12:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Virginia moving to eliminate all accelerated math courses before 11th grade as part of equity-focused plan

    https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-movi...204158628.html

    Look out China, here we come.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bishop2b5
    replied
    Olympic athletes promised legal support if they protest (espn.com)

    This is part of why so many of us HATE the entire PC/SJW thing so much. Sports is often an escape from the relentless stream of bad news, conflict, stress, and hostility we deal with all too often in life. ESPN all but ruined that escape for most of us over the past decade by becoming ESJWPN until finally reversing course to some extent. Now the Olympics is on the brink of being taken over by every athletic asshole on the planet with an agenda. The IOC has reaffirmed its long-standing ban on "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda'' on the field of play, medal podiums or official ceremonies... as well it should. No clothing related to any such groups or causes will be permitted. Good. Of course, activist groups are claiming THEIR pet cause should be the exception and be allowed, and are promising legal defense for athletes who are punished for breaking the IOC rules against such. Sigh.

    Leave a comment:


  • drayer54
    replied
    Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post

    People died, yes...from heart attacks. The only death they know of that was a direct result of violence is Ashli Babbitt who was shot trying to enter. 5 deaths, 3 of which were heart related, Babbitt being the 4th, and the last being the unfortunate death of Officer Sicknick. While he was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher, just a few weeks ago Newsweek reported it was still unclear what the cause of death was as other health factors may have contributed to his death.

    Trump called for the protesters to disperse multiple times during the fracas, and any calls he made to stop the transition of power prior were vague at best. It's one of the reasons they couldn't make the impeachment stick. An insurrection is defined as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." There was nothing organized about that group of people, they didn't have a plan and they dispersed as soon as the NG told them to leave. Violent? There were a handful that were violent, but it was a mostly peaceful protest (See what I did there?). Again, for all the pearl clutching over 5 deaths only one was confirmed as a direct result of violence, that being Babbitt. That doesn't mean the deaths weren't unfortunate and preventable, but citing the deaths is kind of silly when only Sicknick's death can be attributed to possible violence by the protesters. He was still able to return to the station afterwards as oppose to going directly to a medical facility, which lends itself to the fact his cause of death is still unconfirmed.

    So, no, insurrection isn't the exact word because it doesn't fit the definition.

    Leave a comment:


  • ulukinatme
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    I'll tell you the same thing I tell my staff - make your point concise.

    Your initial response to me was that I posted an article "predictably" (not sure what that means, as it is assuming that I waited until finding article to fit my beliefs) days after the incident. When, in fact, it was the first article to show up in my Google search. So, back to your original hand wringing - where did I go wrong in posting the first available news story? As well, the initial discussion was that there were little details out there and that it wasn't a bigger story. In your post, you appear (it's not very clear) to claim that it had the potential to be a bigger story but...wasn't so that's an issue? Isn't the whole gripe that white people don't get the same coverage as black people, but when a black person has been killed a police officer you're upset at that? Consistency please.
    Thanks for the advice, boss.

    I will break it down -

    Your initial response to me was that I posted an article "predictably" (not sure what that means, as it is assuming that I waited until finding article to fit my beliefs) days after the incident.

    You are trying to make a point that the media disclosed race in relation to Virginia Beach... I am simply saying its convenient and predictable that an article 5 days late to the party disclosed race... and its convenient and predictable that the story, within that 5 days, went from 10 shot / 2 dead to Police being investigated for shooting black man with barely any mention of all the other events that occured.

    If I wanted to jump on you about being predictable, Google algarithms already did that feeding you a story they predicted you would like/read since thats how Google algarithms work... they predict what you want to see. So if I wanted to go there I would say its funny that the first thing that popped up for your Virgina Beach Google search was an article about investigating the police with little mention of everything else.

    So, back to your original hand wringing - where did I go wrong in posting the first available news story?

    Again, your article is late to the party. The lead story will always be the story. People are not morons but peope are lazy. People read headlines and some might skim the article for names and specifics but rarely do people read the whole article... which is something to keep in mind for ad placement when marketing. But rarely do people read follw up stories... rarely do people read articles 5 days after after the fact. rarely do people see edits or retractions. You aren't "wrong" but if you are trying to prove a point by defending media and what they said or didnt an article 5 days late isn't doing much for your argument.

    As well, the initial discussion was that there were little details out there and that it wasn't a bigger story. In your post, you appear (it's not very clear) to claim that it had the potential to be a bigger story but...wasn't so that's an issue?

    10 shot / 2 dead should be a big story. 10 shot / 2 dead at the very least has the potential to be a big story depending on the what, where, hows, and whos... It ran into our local news but it quickly fizzled when it became sort of non-story because the hows and whos. A bunch of black people shooting at each seems to be a non story nobdy really cares about. Even in your 5 day late article it just mostly talks about the officer being investigated (convenient and predictable).

    Isn't the whole gripe that white people don't get the same coverage as black people, but when a black person has been killed a police officer you're upset at that? Consistency please.

    Again... nobody really seems to care about the 10 shot / 2 dead story because they were black people shooting at other black people. As much as it should be a story and a bigger story, its not... even you admit that. Even the article you posted leaves one to assume the only story that even really matters is white cop shoots black man. That seems to be consistant with the media and I guess society as a whole. BLM matters only when shot by a officer, the other people just seem to be a side story or non-story at this point.


    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    I'll tell you the same thing I tell my staff - make your point concise.

    Your initial response to me was that I posted an article "predictably" (not sure what that means, as it is assuming that I waited until finding article to fit my beliefs) days after the incident. When, in fact, it was the first article to show up in my Google search. So, back to your original hand wringing - where did I go wrong in posting the first available news story? As well, the initial discussion was that there were little details out there and that it wasn't a bigger story. In your post, you appear (it's not very clear) to claim that it had the potential to be a bigger story but...wasn't so that's an issue? Isn't the whole gripe that white people don't get the same coverage as black people, but when a black person has been killed a police officer you're upset at that? Consistency please.
    Yes or no? Sorry, couldn't resist. lol

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

    I think if you really look at your comment you can see a glaring problem with media and society as a whole. The fact that it was a story and now really isnt says everything we need to know in my opinion. Multiple black males have a shootout in Virgina beach. If that was the information known right off the jump it would have stayed a local story and we may not have ever heard about it. But the media had very little information in a very hyper-sensitive gotcha nation and the initial reports or the initial headline (with nothing known about race, motive or victims) was multiple people shot, some injuries, some killed, at the very least, had the potential to be a big story. Even as BLM being as big as it as now... black people shooting at each and injurying and killing each isnt really national headline worthy sadly. The fact that it WAS initially a national story and now that we have the facts it just isnt juicy enough to care about should be the argument against the media and society. There were no hashtags, no movements, no protests, no overblown media coverage becaue groups could not attach hastags, protests, movements and no political/media narrative could be conveyed with this story, probably much to their disappointment. Just a bunch of black guys shooting other... next story...
    I'll tell you the same thing I tell my staff - make your point concise.

    Your initial response to me was that I posted an article "predictably" (not sure what that means, as it is assuming that I waited until finding article to fit my beliefs) days after the incident. When, in fact, it was the first article to show up in my Google search. So, back to your original hand wringing - where did I go wrong in posting the first available news story? As well, the initial discussion was that there were little details out there and that it wasn't a bigger story. In your post, you appear (it's not very clear) to claim that it had the potential to be a bigger story but...wasn't so that's an issue? Isn't the whole gripe that white people don't get the same coverage as black people, but when a black person has been killed a police officer you're upset at that? Consistency please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Yes, that would be an issue if they said "White Shooter Kills Black Man" - that was not the case, entirely different. This situation did not happen, and it was not a coverup by the media as we now know by the released information. There were no hashtags, no movements, no protests, no overblown media coverage - so anything handwringing at Duh Media!1! is ridiculous.
    I think if you really look at your comment you can see a glaring problem with media and society as a whole. The fact that it was a story and now really isnt says everything we need to know in my opinion. Multiple black males have a shootout in Virgina beach. If that was the information known right off the jump it would have stayed a local story and we may not have ever heard about it. But the media had very little information in a very hyper-sensitive gotcha nation and the initial reports or the initial headline (with nothing known about race, motive or victims) was multiple people shot, some injuries, some killed, at the very least, had the potential to be a big story. Even as BLM being as big as it as now... black people shooting at each and injurying and killing each isnt really national headline worthy sadly. The fact that it WAS initially a national story and now that we have the facts it just isnt juicy enough to care about should be the argument against the media and society. There were no hashtags, no movements, no protests, no overblown media coverage becaue groups could not attach hastags, protests, movements and no political/media narrative could be conveyed with this story, probably much to their disappointment. Just a bunch of black guys shooting other... next story...

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Haha, I'm glad it's not lost on you. Trying to get out of feeling based or anecdotal type arguments. I just wanted to point out that the race was actually disclosed.
    Still waiting for a yes or no. lol

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

    I'm assuming what he is getting at is a concern that journalists are often content to put out a story leaving out facts that are not good for their narrative they want to push. Then they go in and edit it later to fix things after the cycle has passed.

    I dont think this particular instance was really all that bad. But we see journos set wildfires regularly such as "Breaking: the shooter in Denver is a young white male. What does this say about the dangers white men pose to BIPOCLGBTQQ+?"

    Replies: 1K Retweets: 25K Likes: 127K

    Follow up tweet/edit to article: "it turns out the shooter was not necessarily white. I will not share his name and will instead focus on the victims. Gun control now!"

    Replies: 125 retweets: 750 likes: 1K

    Thats not to say that it is specifically a right/left media thing, but media in general is among the most left leaning professions so there are a ton of prime examples there.
    Yes, that would be an issue if they said "White Shooter Kills Black Man" - that was not the case, entirely different. This situation did not happen, and it was not a coverup by the media as we now know by the released information. There were no hashtags, no movements, no protests, no overblown media coverage - so anything handwringing at Duh Media!1! is ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Critical thinking is tough, I know. But, the article I posted was because someone commented as recently as April 2nd. That people are brainwashed morons, when they could have checked for any additional articles since the initial post by Bishop.

    I posted the first article I found that showed 1) The race of the shooter 2) The race of victim. As that was in question by the original post on March 27th. Are you saying that if a article is not written the day of the incident that anything after that day is not allowed? Not sure what your gripe is here, other than wanting to rush to judgement and semantics.
    I'm assuming what he is getting at is a concern that journalists are often content to put out a story leaving out facts that are not good for their narrative they want to push. Then they go in and edit it later to fix things after the cycle has passed.

    I dont think this particular instance was really all that bad. But we see journos set wildfires regularly such as "Breaking: the shooter in Denver is a young white male. What does this say about the dangers white men pose to BIPOCLGBTQQ+?"

    Replies: 1K Retweets: 25K Likes: 127K

    Follow up tweet/edit to article: "it turns out the shooter was not necessarily white. I will not share his name and will instead focus on the victims. Gun control now!"

    Replies: 125 retweets: 750 likes: 1K

    Thats not to say that it is specifically a right/left media thing, but media in general is among the most left leaning professions so there are a ton of prime examples there.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

    Predictably the article you posted was days after the incident... and predictably the article you posted was primarily talking about the Officer involved shooting of a Black Man and only briefly touched on the shooting at the end. Initial reports did not disclose race in any shooting relating to Virginia Beach on that day until later. The shooting happened late Friday March 27th, your article is from March 30th.
    Critical thinking is tough, I know. But, the article I posted was because someone commented as recently as April 2nd. That people are brainwashed morons, when they could have checked for any additional articles since the initial post by Bishop.

    I posted the first article I found that showed 1) The race of the shooter 2) The race of victim. As that was in question by the original post on March 27th. Are you saying that if a article is not written the day of the incident that anything after that day is not allowed? Not sure what your gripe is here, other than wanting to rush to judgement and semantics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Haha, I'm glad it's not lost on you. Trying to get out of feeling based or anecdotal type arguments. I just wanted to point out that the race was actually disclosed.
    Predictably the article you posted was days after the incident... and predictably the article you posted was primarily talking about the Officer involved shooting of a Black Man and only briefly touched on the shooting at the end. Initial reports did not disclose race in any shooting relating to Virginia Beach on that day until later. The shooting happened late Friday March 27th, your article is from March 30th.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    You’re cracking me up Toronto. You’re the king of reminding people that someone either didn’t respond to your question or reminding them they replied but didn’t answer yes or no. You avoided by replying with a question. Fred Astaire would have been proud.
    Haha, I'm glad it's not lost on you. Trying to get out of feeling based or anecdotal type arguments. I just wanted to point out that the race was actually disclosed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Would you consider Pharrell Williams a popular person? How do you feel about the Capitol incident, surely that's enough coverage for crime committed for a black person?
    You’re cracking me up Toronto. You’re the king of reminding people that someone either didn’t respond to your question or reminding them they replied but didn’t answer yes or no. You avoided by replying with a question. Fred Astaire would have been proud.

    Leave a comment:


  • drayer54
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    Barkley is one the best behind the booth. I love his commentary. Or course, he’s right. That’s how Clinton v Trump was a thing. Name two more divisive candidates? 4 years into Biden and we’ll see but this isn’t getting better. I still think we need a divorce.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLax
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Would you consider Pharrell Williams a popular person? How do you feel about the Capitol incident, surely that's enough coverage for crime committed for a black person?
    I don't know who that is or much about the Capitol incident.

    Leave a comment:


  • drayer54
    replied
    Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

    Sooo... Do you think media would treat this different if the Capitol guy was white? Farrakhan going to be charged for inciting an insurrection?
    Well, duh. It would be leading the airwaves if it fit the narrative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Would you consider Pharrell Williams a popular person? How do you feel about the Capitol incident, surely that's enough coverage for crime committed for a black person?
    Sooo... Do you think media would treat this different if the Capitol guy was white? Farrakhan going to be charged for inciting an insurrection?
    Last edited by Blazers46; 04-03-2021, 09:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post

    You think the media would have treated this the same if the shooter was white?
    Would you consider Pharrell Williams a popular person? How do you feel about the Capitol incident, surely that's enough coverage for crime committed for a black person?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    I wonder if anyone calling it this censorship media conspiracy will walk back those comments. Or, now that there is more details coming out they'll have anything substantive to say about the case.
    You think the media would have treated this the same if the shooter was white?

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

    When I checked the day of it didn't have much info available. This wasn't a huge deal to me one way or the other. But I'm assuming some articles were updated or new ones were published.
    I wonder if anyone calling it this censorship media conspiracy will walk back those comments. Or, now that there is more details coming out they'll have anything substantive to say about the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
    This Virginia Beach shooting right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...oting-76773879 Says the race right upfront.
    Right up front and 5 days later...

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
    This Virginia Beach shooting right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...oting-76773879 Says the race right upfront.
    When I checked the day of it didn't have much info available. This wasn't a huge deal to me one way or the other. But I'm assuming some articles were updated or new ones were published.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    This Virginia Beach shooting right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...oting-76773879 Says the race right upfront.

    Leave a comment:


  • irishff1014
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
    I just learned something odd related to the Virginia Beach shootings. Some of the coverage seemed unusual or "off" so to speak, and any reference to race, whether it was that of the shooters or the victims or the officer, were left out, and it seemed rather obvious in the two articles I read that they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of race. It wasn't just that it wasn't mentioned, it was that they clearly were tiptoeing around it intentionally and that was rather obvious. I had no idea if the shooters and victims were black or white, and nothing about the circumstances of the shooting gave much of a clue. So, I googled "Virginia Beach shooting race" and got NOTHING about race. When you Google something, the words you put into the search bar are bolded in each of the results. Not here. Even when I included "+race" Google simply ignored the word, didn't bold it in any results and didn't even show the word race struck through, indicating it had found results for "Virginia Beach shooting" but none of them included the word race. Unless I'm missing something, Google has intentionally blocked the ability to use race a search term for this event. Have we really gotten to this point?
    We have gotten to this point. The stupid people of this country will still want abc,cbs,nbc and so forth and believe. The government is getting what they want. A bunch of brainwashed morons.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

    Ironically, this #Resistance grifter also called it the "Wuhan Virus" last year.

    Btw, Black vs Asian animosity goes back decades and is well documented. While it's en vogue to blame literally everything on white people, anyone who pretends that is isn't/wasn't commonplace for things like Asian parents to forbid dating black people or for Korean store owners to discriminate against Blacks is either a liar or uninformed.
    Goes beyond the western/white world too. Hines Ward used to talk about his korean mother being ostracized from the community because she had a child with a black serviceman. I think I've read some stories about blatant racism in China directed at Africans.

    I dont think China or Korea are exactly bastions of whiteness or white supremacy.

    People of different ethnicities having beef with each other is a tale as old as time.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLax
    replied
    Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
    Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    Ironically, this #Resistance grifter also called it the "Wuhan Virus" last year.

    Btw, Black vs Asian animosity goes back decades and is well documented. While it's en vogue to blame literally everything on white people, anyone who pretends that is isn't/wasn't commonplace for things like Asian parents to forbid dating black people or for Korean store owners to discriminate against Blacks is either a liar or uninformed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irishize
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

    Isn't that the dude who lost his ability to practice medicine or something like that
    Yes, he’s a creepy weirdo who has been accused of stalking by female acquaintances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post

    Fixed your link.
    Your link got less views and less likes so I cannot take it as credible. And its not even funny...

    Leave a comment:


  • greyhammer90
    replied
    Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

    Straight White Males... yeah I said it, someone had to say it, it had to be said....

    https://youtu.be/WLMgbV3uaz8
    Fixed your link.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blazers46
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    And the most hated/disrespected group today is
    A) LGBMT
    B) Blacks
    C) Hispanics
    D) Asians
    E) Middle Easterners
    F) None of the Above
    Straight White Males... yeah I said it, someone had to say it, it had to be said....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omMpqbuyDdc

    Leave a comment:


  • drayer54
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    And the most hated/disrespected group today is
    A) LGBMT
    B) Blacks
    C) Hispanics
    D) Asians
    E) Middle Easterners
    F) None of the Above
    in real life or on the internet?

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
    Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    And the most hated/disrespected group today is
    A) LGBMT
    B) Blacks
    C) Hispanics
    D) Asians
    E) Middle Easterners
    F) None of the Above

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
    Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    Isn't that the dude who lost his ability to practice medicine or something like that

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
    Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    Which all white neighborhood do you think he's posting from

    Leave a comment:


  • ab2cmiller
    replied
    Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    Leave a comment:

Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X