Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

El Runkin wrote:

You are of the belief that the murder of Lawrence Herr, a janitor in the NOLA area, is relatively unimportant and not worth reading and getting upset about, but that the death of, e.g., Trayvon Martin is relatively important (of national importance) and is worth reading about and getting quite upset about (maybe even rioting over). And the reason you make such a significant distinction between the two deaths/events is because you have an understanding (albeit unexpressed understanding) of something that I do not have, and I can only hope to gain by stumbling upon it if I'm lucky.

I have summarized your expressed beliefs with accuracy. And I have posted a link to the story of the murder of Lawrence Herr that you should, of course, ignore because it's not worth your time and political sensibilities.

Link:www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/kenne...

Where did I say that one was more important than the other? Was this another subliminal message I conveyed via rhetorical question? Are you purposefully trolling me by misrepresenting what I’m saying? I don’t know how you could be this lost.

I’m saying that a national news outlet like NBC might platform one murder story and not the other because it’s more important to their audience and thus will generate more engagement. You don’t seem to think this is the case, and so I ask again, why do you think there’s a discrepancy in reporting these types of crimes based on the race of the individuals involved? I’m genuinely very curious as to what you believe causes this phenomenon that we both agree exists, and I’m not sure how we could continue this discussion without you explaining what you actually believe. Have some courage buddy.

El Runkin wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

Where did I say that one was more important than the other? Was this another subliminal message I conveyed via rhetorical question? Are you purposefully trolling me by misrepresenting what I’m saying? I don’t know how you could be this lost.

I’m saying that a national news outlet like NBC might platform one murder story and not the other because it’s more important to their audience and thus will generate more engagement. You don’t seem to think this is the case, and so I ask again, why do you think there’s a discrepancy in reporting these types of crimes based on the race of the individuals involved? I’m genuinely very curious as to what you believe causes this phenomenon that we both agree exists, and I’m not sure how we could continue this discussion without you explaining what you actually believe. Have some courage buddy.

I can't do another "argument autopsy." Not enough beer in the fridge at work for me to get through such a ponderous, godforsaken task which, history shows, you will just ignore and deflect from anyway.

That said, you have (surprisingly) admitted that the national media has a "double standard" (your words) when it comes to racial based crimes like the ones being discussed. In general, the national media emphasizes reporting of crimes with black victims/white criminals and deemphasizes (some would say ignores) crimes with white victims/black criminals. You've admitted that (as part of your confused, convoluted process where you think you got me to admit what I had said to begin with). We are in agreement, you and I.

When you admitted that, you suggested that the cause or reason for that phenomena /behavior/trend/policy (described above) was an unexpressed "understanding" that you have and that people like me and whatshisface lack. I think you are now saying that "understanding" is the profit motive -- the national media knows what its consumers want to buy so they provide it to maximize revenue. Is that what your cryptic reference to an "understanding" was? I find that hard to believe. You can and could have assumed that everyone knows profit is a (non-exclusive) motive behind virtually everything in the public sphere. I think this unexpressed "understanding" of yours was something more along the lines of your usual comments on racial issues. But if you want to now say you were just referring to the obvious "it's all about money" bit, obviously I can't prove you wrong. (I would note that it kinds of begs the question of why consumers of national media only want to buy stories on certain kinds of crime).

El Runkin wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

Where did I say that one was more important than the other? Was this another subliminal message I conveyed via rhetorical question? Are you purposefully trolling me by misrepresenting what I’m saying? I don’t know how you could be this lost.

I’m saying that a national news outlet like NBC might platform one murder story and not the other because it’s more important to their audience and thus will generate more engagement. You don’t seem to think this is the case, and so I ask again, why do you think there’s a discrepancy in reporting these types of crimes based on the race of the individuals involved? I’m genuinely very curious as to what you believe causes this phenomenon that we both agree exists, and I’m not sure how we could continue this discussion without you explaining what you actually believe. Have some courage buddy.

I can't do another "argument autopsy." Not enough beer in the fridge at work for me to get through such a ponderous, godforsaken task which, history shows, you will just ignore and deflect from anyway.

That said, you have (surprisingly) admitted that the national media has a "double standard" (your words) when it comes to racial based crimes like the ones being discussed. In general, the national media emphasizes reporting of crimes with black victims/white criminals and deemphasizes (some would say ignores) crimes with white victims/black criminals. You've admitted that (as part of your confused, convoluted process where you think you got me to admit what I had said to begin with). We are in agreement, you and I.

When you admitted that, you suggested that the cause or reason for that phenomena /behavior/trend/policy (described above) was an unexpressed "understanding" that you have and that people like me and whatshisface lack. I think you are now saying that "understanding" is the profit motive -- the national media knows what its consumers want to buy so they provide it to maximize revenue. Is that what your cryptic reference to an "understanding" was? I find that hard to believe. You can and could have assumed that everyone knows profit is a (non-exclusive) motive behind virtually everything in the public sphere. I think this unexpressed "understanding" of yours was something more along the lines of your usual comments on racial issues. But if you want to now say you were just referring to the obvious "it's all about money" bit, obviously I can't prove you wrong. (I would note that it kinds of begs the question of why consumers of national media only want to buy stories on certain kinds of crime).

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

El Runkin wrote:

I can't do another "argument autopsy." Not enough beer in the fridge at work for me to get through such a ponderous, godforsaken task which, history shows, you will just ignore and deflect from anyway.

That said, you have (surprisingly) admitted that the national media has a "double standard" (your words) when it comes to racial based crimes like the ones being discussed. In general, the national media emphasizes reporting of crimes with black victims/white criminals and deemphasizes (some would say ignores) crimes with white victims/black criminals. You've admitted that (as part of your confused, convoluted process where you think you got me to admit what I had said to begin with). We are in agreement, you and I.

When you admitted that, you suggested that the cause or reason for that phenomena /behavior/trend/policy (described above) was an unexpressed "understanding" that you have and that people like me and whatshisface lack. I think you are now saying that "understanding" is the profit motive -- the national media knows what its consumers want to buy so they provide it to maximize revenue. Is that what your cryptic reference to an "understanding" was? I find that hard to believe. You can and could have assumed that everyone knows profit is a (non-exclusive) motive behind virtually everything in the public sphere. I think this unexpressed "understanding" of yours was something more along the lines of your usual comments on racial issues. But if you want to now say you were just referring to the obvious "it's all about money" bit, obviously I can't prove you wrong. (I would note that it kinds of begs the question of why consumers of national media only want to buy stories on certain kinds of crime).

What's surprising about admitting water is wet? Do you think so low of me? Don't answer that.

Yes, the national media is motivated by profit. They are large publicly traded corporations. Yes, it does beg the question why consumers of national media prefer their news stories a certain way. Do you want to take a crack at that question or should I just dive right in? That's essentially what I've been asking you all along.

El Runkin wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

What's surprising about admitting water is wet? Do you think so low of me? Don't answer that.

Yes, the national media is motivated by profit. They are large publicly traded corporations. Yes, it does beg the question why consumers of national media prefer their news stories a certain way. Do you want to take a crack at that question or should I just dive right in? That's essentially what I've been asking you all along.

You haven't been asking me anything, or at least anything that anyone could answer. I've been asking YOU repeatedly about this "understanding" you have and that guys like me and whatshisface do not have. You have not said, even in another cryptic way, what this "understanding" of yours is or was. You have danced around it continuously, and I think you are now suggesting the "understanding" that you have and I do not, is that profit motivates the media. I do not believe for a second that is the "understanding" you were referring to. That is far too banal and common a point to have been made in such a vague and condescending manner ("I'm hoping some day one of you stumbles into understandingwhy the double standards exist in the first place."). I think the "understanding" you were referring was a justification you had in mind for the media's "double standard" (your words) that involves your perceptions of the current degree of white supremacy in the US and/or oppression of blacks.

Don't feel a need to "respond" further. I promise you I won't after this. Word to the wise, though. Your misunderstandings of what is being said to you, whether deliberate (deflection) or otherwise (reading comprehension problems) will not serve you well in law school if you approach that endeavor in the same manner that you do message board posts.

El Runkin wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

Yes, this is everyone's favorite part of the online argument. Arguing about the argument. Argument autopsy. Since you insist and since I can't help myself, let's break the whole thing down.

El Runkin ponders why the national media isn't covering a story where two black people kill a white person.

I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting. "If the races were reversed, this would be all over the national news" type of stuff. However, the race of the individuals are what they are, and so it was never going to be widely covered in the national media, leading to me ask "why would it be?" This question is in regards to this specific crime, not all racialized hate crimes, which doesn't come up until the next post in the chain.

El Runkin responds that it's a racialized hate crime, and therefore one would think it would be important enough to cover nationally. Something like that. I find this general statement to be both challenging and amusing. Obviously, not all racialized hate crimes are treated equally by news outlets. Some are given national attention while others are not. Again, the races of the perps are what they are, so this story was never going to be covered. Had they been reversed, it probably would have been.

My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact. Are crimes like this usually covered? Yes, but only if people of certain races are the victim, which is not the case in this instance. That was what I was looking for, and I actually got it from another poster pretty much right away so it couldn't have been that confusing. I was not, as you interpreted, saying that racialized hate crimes as a whole were never covered nationally. Some are and some aren't. The one that was linked obviously wouldn't be, but I am not insinuating with this question that no racialized hate crimes are covered.

Then you get caught up in this and put a whole bunch of other words in my mouth along the way, like saying that I think the double standard is "justified" and that I think you're not smart enough to understand why the double standard exists. I think you are smart enough, and justified is a weird word to use. I don't think of it as justified or not justified. It's just cause and effect.

Hope this helps. It's been way too long since I've done acid.

Blow Hunter: wrote:

El Runkin ponders why the national media isn't covering a story where two black people kill a white person.

I wouldn't say I pondered it. Very few people ponder that anymore. Most of us know why there is what you call a "double standard" in reporting distinct types of alleged hate crimes (even if many won't admit they know why). So I didn't ponder it, I made an observation. You could call it a rhetorical observation.

Blow Hunter: wrote:

I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting. "If the races were reversed, this would be all over the national news" type of stuff.

That's a reasonable interpretation of what I was suggesting.

Blow Hunter: wrote:

However, the race of the individuals are what they are, and so it was never going to be widely covered in the national media, leading to me ask "why would it be?"

I agree that it was never going to be covered nationally because of the race of the individuals (black criminals, white victim), but I disagree that your confrontational rhetorical question "why would it be [covered]?" was suggesting that. You weren't agreeing with me (at least not yet).

Blow Hunter: wrote:

El Runkin responds that it's a racialized hate crime, and therefore one would think it would be important enough to cover nationally. Something like that.

No, that's erroneous. As you correctly pointed out above, I was suggesting liberal/woke bias (motives) in media is why it was NOT reported nationally.

Blow Hunter wrote:

I find this general statement to be both challenging and amusing.

I'm sure that things you misread are often challenging and amusing to you.

Blow Hunter: wrote:

Obviously, not all racialized hate crimes are treated equally by news outlets. Some are given national attention while others are not. Again, the races of the perps are what they are, so this story was never going to be covered. Had they been reversed, it probably would have been.

Agreed. That's almost brave of you to admit, as many people would deny that happens. But it does beg the question of why you disagreed with me to begin with. See rhetorical question in Post No. 39054.

Blow Hunter wrote:

My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact. Are crimes like this usually covered? Yes, but only if people of certain races are the victim, which is not the case in this instance

You are saying that you cleverly formulated a question to get me to acknowledge a fact that you previously admit that I had already expressed (acknowledged) to begin with. Makes no sense.

Blow Hunter: wrote:

I was not, as you interpreted, saying that racialized hate crimes as a whole were never covered nationally. Some are and some aren't. The one that was linked obviously wouldn't be, but I am not insinuating with this question that no racialized hate crimes are covered.

You are again internally confused, this time within a single post. You are saying you got me to admit/acknowledge that the national media would not report this because of the race of the individuals ("My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact") while at the same time you alleged that was my point to begin with ("I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting").

Blow Hunter wrote:

Hope this helps. It's been way too long since I've done acid.

In my considerable experience, acid is a white man's drug.