The Lib movement begins to eat itself-- awesome!

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.democraticunderground.co...sg&forum=104&topic_id=3945852&mesg_id=3945852

from a recent thread echoing this crapaganda:
"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered and poor, black, Hispanic or other people of color who go missing do not get covered," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. "You're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive than if you're not."

If you want to criticize media coverage of missing persons, go ahead. It does not help your argument to hold up “blonde, white chicks” or “cute white girls” in digital lynching, a new version of “blame the victim.” WHY ARE YOU MAKING ANGLO WOMEN THE ENEMY? You wan't to clean up media? Don't wipe the floor with women.

It is so short-sighted and divisive, and so COMPLETELY avoids any of the real issues involved in missing persons cases and media sensationalism, that we wonder: WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? Are you sure you haven’t been freeped? Is this meme an infiltration from the Rush Limbaugh Pool of Cess? Then it gets repeated in posts and thread titles on DU and the slimefest ensues.

DU has a set of Rules based on “respect.” Have the courage to address the issue of racism in the media without propping up your arguments on the backs of women who have been demonized and humiliated enough already.

THIS HAS NO PLACE ON DU. Quit repeating a new bumpersticker of hate speech. It’s just lazy.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

Or a woman standing up for a woman scorned. Looks like someone found that out the hard way.