POLL: Which scenario spreads racism more quickly?

[Mac1958]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

 

[candycorn]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.

Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

 

[Mac1958]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple


There's no way of telling what affect either scenario will really have.

Living in the deep south ...
I do know that if the media wants to gin some crap up and find a shitload more than 22 staunch racists ...
They would have better luck at any nursing home.

We kind of sent the racists to the back of the bus so to speak ...
If they want to put them back on center stage ...
It probably means they don't have anything better to offer.​

.​

 

[Mac1958]

.​

Pineapple


There's no way of telling what affect either scenario will really have.

Living in the deep south ...
I do know that if the media wants to gin some crap up and find a shitload more than 22 staunch racists ...
They would have better luck at any nursing home.

We kind of sent the racists to the back of the bus so to speak ...
If they want to put them back on center stage ...
It probably means they don't have anything better to offer.​

.​

This isn't about the deep south. Media and the internet are global.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Obviously there are many people on this board who would vote for the first scenario.

Dang, I hope they see this poll!

 

[BlackSand]

This isn't about the deep south. Media and the internet are global.
.

My comment was about the media and their intentions to cover a rally of "22 idiots".

The idiots have been and are there.
If the media sees any value in covering them ... They are simply ceasing the opportunity to use the idiots.

The value they receive from that is more akin to Hillary's "deplorables" campaign.
If the media insists on going there ... It's most likely those they are attempting support don't really have anything better to offer.

If the purpose is to expose racism and it's affects on society ...
They would have better luck talking to a bunch of geezers in a nursing home ...
Not that it is my experience talking to the geezers would change the way they feel about it.

Welcome to the 21st Century ...

.​

 

[candycorn]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. In one breath you decry the media giving oxygen to these folks and in the next, you criticize the media when they don’t.

And for the millionth time….not giving someone your megaphone or airwaves or auditorium doesn’t keep them from speaking their mind. I am happy that my tax dollars are not being used by the universities in my state to give white supremacists a forum to “educate” people. they can rent out a theater somewhere else and say whatever they want.

 

[ATL]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

Substitute BLM for the white racists in your scenario....would you hold the same "hands off" approach in media coverage? Or rather would you say it needs to be covered to show how the anti-god left hates America...

 

[Mac1958]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. In one breath you decry the media giving oxygen to these folks and in the next, you criticize the media when they don’t.

And for the millionth time….not giving someone your megaphone or airwaves or auditorium doesn’t keep them from speaking their mind. I am happy that my tax dollars are not being used by the universities in my state to give white supremacists a forum to “educate” people. they can rent out a theater somewhere else and say whatever they want.

And again, your comparison is warped. Facebook and Twitter are not "the media" in a traditional sense. The media shows up because they know the left wing groups are going to be there and there will be juicy footage as a result. They also report on it the minute they hear of it, to get as many protestors there as they can.

And I suspect you don't complain much about left wing groups on campus.

Save your outrage over my supposed "hypocrisy".
.

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

Substitute BLM for the white racists in your scenario....would you hold the same "hands off" approach in media coverage? Or rather would you say it needs to be covered to show how the anti-god left hates America...

Nope, I want to see race relations improve. They won't be improved by either BLM or the mouth-breathers.

The media loves controversy and violence, and these groups just love giving it to them. That solves nothing.
.

 

[BlackSand]

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

Thanks ... I still don't really know if the coverage is going to make anyone more of an idiot than they already were ...

.​

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When I was a kid back in the early 60s, George Rockwell's American Nazi Party had their HQ about six blocks from where I lived, in Arlington VA.

Occasionally they'd stage a rally out at the entrance, trying to replicate a Hitlerian-speech atmosphere.

We would drive by on the way somewhere else, and laugh at them as we passed. No press in attendance. Passers-by would chuckle and move along. Traffic would hardly slow. Everyone knew the nuts were there, and pretty much ignored them.

They remained sideshow freaks.

 

[candycorn]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. In one breath you decry the media giving oxygen to these folks and in the next, you criticize the media when they don’t.

And for the millionth time….not giving someone your megaphone or airwaves or auditorium doesn’t keep them from speaking their mind. I am happy that my tax dollars are not being used by the universities in my state to give white supremacists a forum to “educate” people. they can rent out a theater somewhere else and say whatever they want.

And again, your comparison is warped. Facebook and Twitter are not "the media" in a traditional sense. The media shows up because they know the left wing groups are going to be there and there will be juicy footage as a result. They also report on it the minute they hear of it, to get as many protestors there as they can.

And I suspect you don't complain much about left wing groups on campus.

Save your outrage over my supposed "hypocrisy".
.

Your hypocrisy is your business.
Our pointing it out is the risk you run when you make it public on a message board.

 

[candycorn]

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

Thanks ... I still don't really know if the coverage is going to make anyone more of an idiot than they already were ...

.​

Blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves seems like a strange stance.

 

[BlackSand]

Nope, I want to see race relations improve. They won't be improved by either BLM or the mouth-breathers.

The media loves controversy and violence, and these groups just love giving it to them. That solves nothing.
.

I don't know if it could be considered an improvement in race relations ...
But when I ask young people race and racism related questions now, most of them just roll their eyes and start laughing.

They don't really care what are problems were/are ...
They are learning how to get along and accomplish their goals together without our bullshit.
Maybe they have just been desensitized to it outside of a few radicals who are ostracized because their agenda doesn't serve purpose.

.​

 

[Mac1958]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. In one breath you decry the media giving oxygen to these folks and in the next, you criticize the media when they don’t.

And for the millionth time….not giving someone your megaphone or airwaves or auditorium doesn’t keep them from speaking their mind. I am happy that my tax dollars are not being used by the universities in my state to give white supremacists a forum to “educate” people. they can rent out a theater somewhere else and say whatever they want.

And again, your comparison is warped. Facebook and Twitter are not "the media" in a traditional sense. The media shows up because they know the left wing groups are going to be there and there will be juicy footage as a result. They also report on it the minute they hear of it, to get as many protestors there as they can.

And I suspect you don't complain much about left wing groups on campus.

Save your outrage over my supposed "hypocrisy".
.

Your hypocrisy is your business.
Our pointing it out is the risk you run when you make it public on a message board.

I feel zero risk from you folks, but I do appreciate your concern! And your rapt attention!
.

 

[Mac1958]

Interesting that we're not getting any Regressives voting for Scenario 1.

Obviously they don't want to admit it.

The last thing they want is to see race relations improve.
.

 

[BlackSand]

Interesting that we're not getting any Regressives voting for Scenario 1.

Obviously they don't want to admit it.

The last thing they want is to see race relations improve.
.

Perhaps race relations aren't as bad as the media likes to suggest ...

There are idiots in every crowd.
Focusing on the idiots sometimes gives the impression they hold more sway than they do in reality.
That still doesn't mean that focusing on them is going to create a lot more of them.

.​

 

[candycorn]

You voted for #2….blaming the media for covering the racists and not the racists themselves.
Interesting; earlier this week, social media decided not to “cover” Alex Jones and put him on their airwaves. You didn’t seem to like that decision.

Interesting, you didn't vote, but you don't have to.

And I'm glad you were at least honest enough to put quotes around "cover", because the situations are clearly different. Unlike you folks, I want everyone to be allowed to speak their mind without interference, without being intimidated, without being shouted down, without threat of violence. I'm not afraid of words. If I don't like it, I don't pay attention.

Swing and a miss.

Come on, be honest again, vote for Scenario 1.
.

I actually agree with you (as I did when you brought it up on another thread). I think it gives the lesser lights among us oxygen; I think it gives them a platform that their stances do not deserve.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. In one breath you decry the media giving oxygen to these folks and in the next, you criticize the media when they don’t.

And for the millionth time….not giving someone your megaphone or airwaves or auditorium doesn’t keep them from speaking their mind. I am happy that my tax dollars are not being used by the universities in my state to give white supremacists a forum to “educate” people. they can rent out a theater somewhere else and say whatever they want.

And again, your comparison is warped. Facebook and Twitter are not "the media" in a traditional sense. The media shows up because they know the left wing groups are going to be there and there will be juicy footage as a result. They also report on it the minute they hear of it, to get as many protestors there as they can.

And I suspect you don't complain much about left wing groups on campus.

Save your outrage over my supposed "hypocrisy".
.

Your hypocrisy is your business.
Our pointing it out is the risk you run when you make it public on a message board.

I feel zero risk from you folks, but I do appreciate your concern! And your rapt attention!
.

I feel zero risk that I will not have more of your hypocrisy to point out tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day….