Typical Media anti White Bias-

[Michael Hardner]

The media and the prosecutor were both happy to bandy about the claim that it was a hate crime.

There *was* a hate crime committed. The victims were 3 priveleged white frat-boys. The perpetrators were media-types looking for a big story, and a prosecutor looking for a high-profile case to boost his chances of re-election. The prosecutor was disbarred and did jail-time for his part. I don't know if anybody in the media has ever said so much as "oops."

If the implication is that the event never occured, well, I was wondering about that myself.

If the only citations for this event are from white supremacists, that does seem awfully suspicious.

However, I did find this citation, from Jim Kuypers, a professor of communications studies at Virginia Tech University. He sounds like a pretty credible guy.

Considering that both Channon and her boyfriend were raped and murdered, it doesn't sound like gender was a factor. Sounds quite equal-opportunity. Likewise, I'm not sure how money explains the event either. They didn't need to rape, torture, and murder the young couple if all they were after was their money or their bank cards.

In the other thread I provided examples of remarkably different media coverage of remarkably similar events. I pointed out that the media excuse that it's not the color of the victims that determined the amount of coverage but rather the racial motive falls completely flat when their definition of a blatant racial motive is entirely dependent on the color of the victims. I provided an example of an attack on a white teenager for blatantly racial reasons that received zero national media coverage, disproving the idea that a blatant racial motive is in itself newsworthy. I provided Canadian examples of the news media declining to mention race in coverage of crimes committed by non-white people even when race was a relevant aspect of the news story. I provided caught-in-the-act proof of Canadian reporters trying to attach a hate-crime element to a story to make it more newsy.

And the only response I received to any of that has been "uh... hey, look! It's Lictor! Let's talk about that Kenyan marathoners thing instead!"

-k

I think that your points on these stories are argued responsibly and with merit. As such, it confuses me as to why you would help prop up Lictor's poorly argued and largely unresearched examples. There are no "teams" on this board - why not just let his arguments die the proper death they deserve.

And if Lictor uses the arguments of white supremacists then so be it. Let's look at HIS arguments or THEIR arguments and defeat them on their own merits, it should be easy. But by jumping in on Lictor's example you appear to be helping him out where he doesn't deserve it.

Lictor appears to be arguing from the point of view that that certain races are inferior in certain respects anyway, so to me his arguments on media coverage need to include his point of view on that as a starting point. As it is, we assume that he thinks that racial crime needs to be covered fairly {in equal measure} but it appears to me that he should be arguing for negative coverage of the races he considers inferior in certain respects.

[lictor616]

I think that your points on these stories are argued responsibly and with merit. As such, it confuses me as to why you would help prop up Lictor's poorly argued and largely unresearched examples. There are no "teams" on this board - why not just let his arguments die the proper death they deserve.

And if Lictor uses the arguments of white supremacists then so be it. Let's look at HIS arguments or THEIR arguments and defeat them on their own merits, it should be easy. But by jumping in on Lictor's example you appear to be helping him out where he doesn't deserve it.

Lictor appears to be arguing from the point of view that that certain races are inferior in certain respects anyway, so to me his arguments on media coverage need to include his point of view on that as a starting point. As it is, we assume that he thinks that racial crime needs to be covered fairly {in equal measure} but it appears to me that he should be arguing for negative coverage of the races he considers inferior in certain respects.

so you reject my arguments simply because I'M SAYING THEM? not because they're incorrect?

I consider no races INFERIOR, that is simply slanderous filth and an obvious attempt at bullying others who noticed the double standards in interracial crime coverage into silence.

So far you have no argument except insults and personal attacks towards me. Kimmy has been making the same arguments about media disparity BEFORE I even started, I really don't think that making the inescapable deductions about the crimes mentioned (namely that the media deliberately exaggerate and blow up interracial crimes with non-white victims, and censor the ones with white victims) is an indication that one is "helping a white supremacist"... its just saying the truth or "calling it like it is".

Kimmy probably disagrees with huge portions of what I write in these boards, and probably cringes that we are essentially "agreeing", but the fact that a moderate like her is capable of making the uncomfortable suggestion that the media is festooned with anti-white bias, and hence risk being called a "racist" herself by the likes of you "left wing irreconcilables" shows us one thing:

*that the reality of our situation is that the media positively IS guilty of anti-white bias and ABSOLUTELY DOES treat interracial crimes based on the color of the victims (or alleged victims) skin.

the evidence is quite indisputable i'm afraid, and so far Hardner, your feeble attempts at defusing the manifest racism present in the media shows us that it is YOU who seems to think that some races (namely the white race) are inferior or less worthy...

Edited November 16, 2009 by lictor616

[Michael Hardner]

so you reject my arguments simply because I'M SAYING THEM? not because they're incorrect?

I consider no races INFERIOR, that is simply slanderous filth and an obvious attempt at bullying others who noticed the double standards in interracial crime coverage into silence.

My apologies. I think that people should be able to decide how they're labeled, so I should have been more careful with my words and I stand corrected. Let me postulate, though, that you do consider certain races to be more prone to criminal activity (for biological reasons) or scholastic activity (again, biologically). Am I correct ? From your posts earlier it seems that I am.

So far you have no argument except insults and personal attacks towards me. Kimmy has been making the same arguments about media disparity BEFORE I even started, I really don't think that making the inescapable deductions about the crimes mentioned (namely that the media deliberately exaggerate and blow up interracial crimes with non-white victims, and censor the ones with white victims) is an indication that one is "helping a white supremacist"... its just saying the truth or "calling it like it is".

Actually, you're misrepresenting me again. I articulated 8 or more arguments on the 'Black Coworker' thread that you left untouched until I pointed out that you had stopped arguing and instead were adding link after link.

Don't label the arguments as inescapable when you yourself ESCAPE from them by posting them, and then posting new arguments when challenged.

I don't care if you're a white supremacist, as I said, but you're a crappy debater and have weak arguments, that appear to me to be fueled by emotional arguments and hysteria and not much else.

Kimmy probably disagrees with huge portions of what I write in these boards, and probably cringes that we are essentially "agreeing", but the fact that a moderate like her is capable of making the uncomfortable suggestion that the media is festooned with anti-white bias, and hence risk being called a "racist" herself by the likes of you "left wing irreconcilables" shows us one thing:

*that the reality of our situation is that the media positively IS guilty of anti-white bias and ABSOLUTELY DOES treat interracial crimes based on the color of the victims (or alleged victims) skin.

the evidence is quite indisputable i'm afraid, and so far Hardner, your feeble attempts at defusing the manifest racism present in the media shows us that it is YOU who seems to think that some races (namely the white race) are inferior or less worthy...

I even agree with some of what you write, but you do such a bad job arguing (and running away) that you need to be discouraged or at least shooed away until you go learn how to articulate these things properly. I haven't called you a racist, but you just called me "left wing" so who's calling who names ?

The evidence is disputable, evidently we are disputing it.

[kimmy]

I think that your points on these stories are argued responsibly and with merit. As such, it confuses me as to why you would help prop up Lictor's poorly argued and largely unresearched examples.

As such, it confuses me that you wish to discuss Lictor's shoddy work rather then the argument I've presented.

There are no "teams" on this board - why not just let his arguments die the proper death they deserve.

I'm not arguing this because I'm on his "team". I'm not on his team, and I don't care for the suggestion that I am.

I'm arguing this because it's a topic I think merits discussion, not to stick up for Lictor.

And if Lictor uses the arguments of white supremacists then so be it. Let's look at HIS arguments or THEIR arguments and defeat them on their own merits, it should be easy. But by jumping in on Lictor's example you appear to be helping him out where he doesn't deserve it.

I provided a non-Nazi cite for the Patricia Stansfield murder because I thought it was very relevant to the topic at hand, not because I am trying to help Lictor.

I'm here to discuss a topic, and you're apparently here to beat the bad-guys.

Lictor appears to be arguing from the point of view that that certain races are inferior in certain respects anyway, so to me his arguments on media coverage need to include his point of view on that as a starting point. As it is, we assume that he thinks that racial crime needs to be covered fairly {in equal measure} but it appears to me that he should be arguing for negative coverage of the races he considers inferior in certain respects.

If you really want Lictor to go away, perhaps you should stop giving him opportunities to talk about white supremacy. If you want everybody else to go away, then by all means keep turning worthwhile topics into idiotic discussions of Lictor's beliefs.

-k

[lictor616]

As such, it confuses me that you wish to discuss Lictor's shoddy work rather then the argument I've presented.

I'll have to concede that her work was indeed far more cogent and better presented then mine, and looking at it now, it is strange that you chose to ask ME to restate what had already been stated by Kimmy...

strange behavior for someone who isn't looking to obfuscate an argument.

Edited November 16, 2009 by lictor616

[Michael Hardner]

As such, it confuses me that you wish to discuss Lictor's shoddy work rather then the argument I've presented.

I thought we did discuss it, and argued to an agree-to-disagree point. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

I'm not arguing this because I'm on his "team". I'm not on his team, and I don't care for the suggestion that I am.

I'm arguing this because it's a topic I think merits discussion, not to stick up for Lictor.

If you don't want to appear to be in league with him, then don't jump on his flimsy arguments and prop them up.

I provided a non-Nazi cite for the Patricia Stansfield murder because I thought it was very relevant to the topic at hand, not because I am trying to help Lictor.

I'm here to discuss a topic, and you're apparently here to beat the bad-guys.

Not at all. I'm having separate discussions with you, and with him. Or at least I thought I was, until you waded into his bad argument and fixed it up for him.

If you really want Lictor to go away, perhaps you should stop giving him opportunities to talk about white supremacy. If you want everybody else to go away, then by all means keep turning worthwhile topics into idiotic discussions of Lictor's beliefs.

-k

I don't know that he is talking about white supremacy. I keep asking him if he is, in good faith, but he sniffs that I'm accusing him of being a racist and runs away to get more links.

I'd like Lictor to either acknowledge his terrible arguments, leave, or just be banned for his bad behavior. Any of these outcomes is fine, but I won't ignore him until we have reached a point where it's obvious to anyone reading that there is no substance to his arguments.

[Michael Hardner]

I'll have to concede that her work was indeed far more cogent and better presented then mine, and looking at it now, it is strange that you chose to ask ME to restate what had already been stated by Kimmy...

strange behavior for someone who isn't looking to obfuscate an argument.

To summarize: Kimmy states that certain types of crimes receive more attention, and postulates as to why this might be. I concur that there may be merit to what she says, and that her conjectures on that may be accurate.

All of this comes out of an argument that doesn't arrive at the table with conclusions in tow.

Follow my 8 suggestions for your argument as a start and maybe you'll someday land a point or two.

[lictor616]

To summarize: Kimmy states that certain types of crimes receive more attention, and postulates as to why this might be. I concur that there may be merit to what she says, and that her conjectures on that may be accurate.

All of this comes out of an argument that doesn't arrive at the table with conclusions in tow.

Follow my 8 suggestions for your argument as a start and maybe you'll someday land a point or two.

why don't you follow this point:

go ahead and view this documentary: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=conversation+about+race&emb=0&aq=f#

you'll understand that YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARRIVES: "at the table with conclusions in tow"... earlier you were rejecting CLEAR and unmistakable bias simply because you already accept that only whites can be racist!

now please do a little soul searching before you ask me about the evidence of bias in the media again! lol I laughed hard enough already.

[Michael Hardner]

why don't you follow this point:

go ahead and view this documentary: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=conversation+about+race&emb=0&aq=f#

you'll understand that YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARRIVES: "at the table with conclusions in tow"... earlier you were rejecting CLEAR and unmistakable bias simply because you already accept that only whites can be racist!

now please do a little soul searching before you ask me about the evidence of bias in the media again! lol I laughed hard enough already.

Lictor - I have already shown on the 'Black Coworker' thread that you have brought up nearly 10 points which I have addressed, and that has led nowhere. Now you want to bring up another link ? Does that mean you're acknowledging that I was right on the other issues ?

You can't just keep giving me new links to investigate forever without closing off our previous discussions. Please respond on that thread, thank you.

[Shwa]

"You can't just keep giving me new links to investigate forever..."

Yes he can. There are no rules in place here for that is there? Besides, you can't catch a fish if your line isn't in the water. (Except flying fish which can travel some 200 meters across the water in the air to escape their predators. Saw this on a documentary last night. Fascinating. But I digress...)

I think Lictor is a fisher of men with his "lure-id" type topics and commentary. He will gather you in and then show you the error of your ways. Your "sins" as it were. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a fundamentalist Christian with the little fish bumper sticker trying to hasten The End Times by playing the role of the Anti-Christ. But it is just a role, nothing more.

[Michael Hardner]

"You can't just keep giving me new links to investigate forever..."

Yes he can. There are no rules in place here for that is there? Besides, you can't catch a fish if your line isn't in the water. (Except flying fish which can travel some 200 meters across the water in the air to escape their predators. Saw this on a documentary last night. Fascinating. But I digress...)

I think Lictor is a fisher of men with his "lure-id" type topics and commentary. He will gather you in and then show you the error of your ways. Your "sins" as it were. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a fundamentalist Christian with the little fish bumper sticker trying to hasten The End Times by playing the role of the Anti-Christ. But it is just a role, nothing more.

Lictor has already expressed his disdain for Christianity, with all its attendant love and mercy.

There should be a rule against continually casting your line into the water. It's against the spirit of the board, and maybe even the letter of the rules....

[Michael Hardner]

...as it appears to be. The rules speak about trolling, and un-researched posts. I think that's what we're talking about here.

[Shwa]

"There should be a rule against continually casting your line into the water."

Agreed. But there would also need to be a rule about taking the bait over and over and expecting different results each time.

The Internet has something for everyone. So he does his "research" because practically every sentiment known in the modern age has some page on some site behind some CICSO router. In fact, he is likely more a product of the Internet Age than you or I where sentiments such as a disdain for Christianity are mostly meaningless in the selected psychological role of "The Anti-Christ." He isn't the first to choose this form of role-playing and I highly doubt he will be the last. Of course, expect a vehement denial from him, but the signs are all there.

Kind of like the phenomenon of the alcoholic: the last one to recognize his alcoholism is the actual alcoholic whereas everyone else knew long before that moment.

[charter.rights]

Lictor has already expressed his disdain for Christianity, with all its attendant love and mercy.

There should be a rule against continually casting your line into the water. It's against the spirit of the board, and maybe even the letter of the rules....

"As long as the fish will bite, the fisherman will cast his line...."

So if you are tired of being caught and reeled in, I would suggest stop responding to his nonsense. There is no doubt that Lictor doesn't believe in what he is presenting. He is merely raising controversial subjects to play a little child's game.

[Michael Hardner]

"As long as the fish will bite, the fisherman will cast his line...."

So if you are tired of being caught and reeled in, I would suggest stop responding to his nonsense. There is no doubt that Lictor doesn't believe in what he is presenting. He is merely raising controversial subjects to play a little child's game.

If that's the case, then he is simply a troll and should be taken off the board.

[charter.rights]

If that's the case, then he is simply a troll and should be taken off the board.

Putting out hypothetic opinions is not trolling. If you don't want to hear his fantastic and outrageous assertions, put him on [iGNORE] like I have and stop responding to his tripe.

[Michael Hardner]

Putting out hypothetic opinions is not trolling. If you don't want to hear his fantastic and outrageous assertions, put him on [iGNORE] like I have and stop responding to his tripe.

I abide by the moderators, and if they deem him worthy of being here then I reserve the right to respond.

Besides, I don't like the idea of unresponded threads of that kind being out there. It leads people to think, sometimes, that there is something to the charges contained therein.

[charter.rights]

I abide by the moderators, and if they deem him worthy of being here then I reserve the right to respond.

Besides, I don't like the idea of unresponded threads of that kind being out there. It leads people to think, sometimes, that there is something to the charges contained therein.

Nah....I've been around here long enough to know that unresponded OPs are merely pointless and not worthy of decent discussion.

[Melanie_]

I no longer think i'll be able to carry on a conversation with you without resorting to ad hominems, i think your comment is disgusting and execrable and quite frankly I don't think I'll be able to give you the respect demanded by the forum rules. I'll leave it at that

You wrote this, then half an hour later sent me a PM with a link to something you described as graphic, and possibly racist. I didn't open the link, as I would prefer to keep our conversation public. If you feel your link has bearing on this thread, or the other one we were discussing last night, please post it publicly.

[kimmy]

I thought we did discuss it, and argued to an agree-to-disagree point. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

I wasn't aware of that. I don't recall that you agreed to disagree with my position, or even stating what portions of it you disagree with or why.

If you don't want to appear to be in league with him, then don't jump on his flimsy arguments and prop them up.

(...)

Not at all. I'm having separate discussions with you, and with him. Or at least I thought I was, until you waded into his bad argument and fixed it up for him.

I'm not sure where I've fixed his arguments up for him, and I'm not trying to prop him up. I'm arguing this because I think the premise has merit, and I have presented a good case as to why. I haven't fixed his argument, I've presented my own. If you feel that by articulating my views on the subject I've saved whatsisname from a beat-down, well, sorry.

Is it that I provided a more credible cite for Patricia Stansfield's murder? I had to find out if that was real, because in terms of helping illustrate my point, it seemed almost too good to be true. Before I could use it in my own argument I had to convince myself that it wasn't fiction invented by white nationalists. I feel fairly satisfied that it wasn't, and provided a cite to support that conclusion.

Is it that I've taken a controversial opinion and presented a defensible case to support it? That's what we do here in Canada. At least, we used to.

-k

[Black Dog]

Every time someone responds to this lictor character, God kills a puppy. Think of the puppies, people.

To the point: are non-crazy racists really surprised that the media might tip toe around race and crime?

[kimmy]

Every time someone responds to this lictor character, God kills a puppy. Think of the puppies, people.

To the point: are non-crazy racists really surprised that the media might tip toe around race and crime?

Is that question addressed to racists who are non crazy? Or is it addressed to people who are non-crazy and non-racist? I'd respond, but I don't want to get branded here.

ok, I'll respond anyway.

No, I'm not *surprised*. However, I think the way the media handles this does a disservice to everyone, and that they deserve the criticism.

-k

[Argus]

I think that your points on these stories are argued responsibly and with merit. As such, it confuses me as to why you would help prop up Lictor's poorly argued and largely unresearched examples. There are no "teams" on this board - why not just let his arguments die the proper death they deserve.

I'm confused. You state that her points are responsible and have merit, yet her points are essentially the same as Lictor's and you think they should die a proper death.

The fact Hitler loved his German Shepherd should in no way reduce you to thinking that everyone who has a German Shepherd is somehow a fan of Adolph Hitler and I didn't think such elementary logic required pointing out to you.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm confused. You state that her points are responsible and have merit, yet her points are essentially the same as Lictor's and you think they should die a proper death.

The fact Hitler loved his German Shepherd should in no way reduce you to thinking that everyone who has a German Shepherd is somehow a fan of Adolph Hitler and I didn't think such elementary logic required pointing out to you.

They're essentially the same, but they're not the same.

The essence of the points is that media doesn't pay attention to similar crimes in the same way. Although the nature of these things dictates that it's almost impossible to determine if that's true, I can believe that it happens for a variety of reasons. Kimmy and I disagree on what some of the reasons might be.

Lictor, on the other hand, articulates this point by pointing at a broad conspiracy of liberals, and uses language that is insulting to anyone with a mature and reasoned outlook.

So, essentially they're saying the same thing but in actuality Lictor is proposing fantastic situations, and his justifications are poorly put together.

[Melanie_]

An old link to a previous discussion on the topic of the Duke lacrosse players...

Maple Leaf Web circa 2006