skh

Oh definitely this is needed. Poor city black culture has some very negative aspects to it that this community needs to address. This fact coupled with the environment of political correctness makes it hard to have honest discussions about race.

I did not say that weberc2 is wrong.

I can see and understand why weberc2 thinks media portrayal is minority friendly.

If I had to guess I’d wager that weberc2 leans right politically in the U.S. based on language he/she used.....I could be wrong. This is all a guess on my part.

And here I switch from you to our. Since the issue does not pertain solely to you but to everyone including me.

In what ways have the sources of our information formed our views?

In what way have I engaged in ad hominem like reasoning. I have not characterized you as anything bad or negative. I did state that I thought you were right of center politically but in what way is this an attack?

It appears that we agree when it comes to talking about race issues. I wrote:

I think weberc2 is referring to politically correct speech and how we have gone a bit far in this regard when talking about race issues. It’s very hard to have an honest discussion about race in the U.S. because of this.

I don’t see how you can say you’ve been attacked or that you’ve had to defend yourself.

I personally have not seen white youth in gangbanger attire accosted by cops in white upper class neighborhoods. I have seen blacks accosted in upper white neighborhoods. I’m willing to bet that most interactions between cops and whites in gangbanger attire in white neighborhoods are much less intense than between cops and blacks in said attire in white neighborhoods.

In the present era it is easy for media to focus stories on a given segment of society. People increasingly are in “news” bubbles where their preconceived views are reinforced by the media they consume. I put news in quotes because mostly what we have now are entertainment companies whose business model is largely based on generating rage by framing stories a certain way.

I can see and understand why weberc2 thinks media portrayal is minority friendly. If I had to guess I’d wager that weberc2 leans right politically in the U.S. based on language he/she used. I think weberc2 is referring to politically correct speech and how we have gone a bit far in this regard when talking about race issues. It’s very hard to have an honest discussion about race in the U.S. because of this. I think weberc2’s view on the matter at hand is referring mostly to this or comes from this perspective. I could be wrong. This is all a guess on my part.

When I talked about media portrayal I’m talking about movies, tv shows, images that have been spun to give a certain perspective. Narratives that have been crafted over decades that change what images are evoked when certain phrases are said. For instance, it wasn’t until after white flight from the cities that “inner city” became a phrase.

My suggesting to weberc2 was to look into all this. In what ways have the sources of our information formed our views? Are those views correct? Does the evidence support them?

In the context we are talking about media perceptions. One person presents a study that provides an opposite conclusion to another person’s view. That study is 4 years old. Things may have changed in the intervening 4 years and arguments that they have are welcome.

This despite the fact that whites - due to being a majority of th population - consume a majority of the welfare.

I’m just posting my own observations and views. I did quote some very specific examples to support my view but what I wrote wasn’t to be taken as conclusive proof.

There are a vast number of articles and scholarly works published on the issue of race portrayal in American media. You can do a web search to find them if you are interested in the topic.

By the way, I’m upper class white. Have very little experience with inner city black culture but realize that even using the phrase “inner city” is pretty much coded language. When people talk about inner city problems inevitably one thinks of brown people. You and your friends may be exceptions to this but statistics and surveys show otherwise for most people.

I said that blacks are on average more likely to be charged with committing a crime than whites. You agree with this since you mention that blacks overcommit crime. Obviously my comment suggests that the variance in the black community is higher than it is in the white community. I didn’t attempt to deny any facts as you put it. My agreement with you is right there in writing. I said blacks on average are more likely to be charged with committing a crime.

I don’t know how old you are but growing up in the 1970s and 1980s when crime was very high there was media narrative with regard to crime and race. This spilled over into the 1990s with Clinton’s remarks about super predators and the need for the 100 thousand cops program. The famous welfare queen that Reagan talked about was black and the image was created that blacks were a problem in terms of being a drain on the system.

Here’s a thought experiment. Have two black guys walk around a predominantly upper middle class white neighborhood walk around with hoodies and low jeans. See if the cops stop them. Have two white guys do the same. I’ll bet more times than not the white guys are treated differently.

Poor white Americans are not more racist than richer white Americans. Framing images and using coded language though allows poor white Americans to get a perception that the problem people, the ones who leech off the system are the brown people and not them. Using race gets people to lose focus on what ought to be socio economic discussions by getting them to think of race.

You should read about the Southern Strategy the Republican party engaged in. Here’s a quote from Atwater:

Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

There is the perception broadly speaking that white = wealthy and black = poor. Blacks on average are poorer and are more likely to be charged with committing a crime but in terms of numbers most crimes are committed by whites and most poor people are white. In the 90s when Hilary Clinton talked about super predators the images were those of black criminals. When Reagan talked about welfare queens the image given was of a black woman with lots of kids.

I’ve felt that if poor whites in the U.S. stopped thinking of themselves as better than brown people, if they would stop believing the myths and media narratives about race then we’d have universal health care and free higher education. A former President from Texas once said

If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.

I know people talk in hyperbole to make a point but can you point to any credible source in the last 30 years stating we are close to total annilhilation within the next 50 years? No one doubts the Earth will be fine. The doubt is whether or not human civilization will be fine.

Suppose you are right that he is being passive agressive. I strongly disagree with this assessment but let’s for the sake of argument agree that he is being passive aggressive. Why is his right to be passive-aggressive diminished? Is he not allowed to be passive-aggressive or hypocritical or any other negative view you have about him?

The correctness of his view that people like him ought to be taxed at a higher rate is not dependent upon his character flaws or lack thereof. The belief ought to be judged on its own merits and not analyzed based on whether or not his character passes muster.

Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop.

Your position become less credible. You need to argue that the censoring that is currently being proposed or being done is indeed bad for society. Or that we’d be better off without said censoring. Engaging in slippery slope style reasoning is not helpful.