- 10,486
- 7,202
- Joined
- May 8, 2012
Journalism spwewwing racism isn't anything new. I'm surprised it's caught on now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Its kinda simple to me.
This is a country that was founded upon the tenet that "All men are created equal", well except the ones we treat as property and base our entire economy on the exploitation of their free labor.
In order for White America to handle the cognitive dissonance that is associated with the treatment of Black people in this country they have to look at us as inhuman or subhuman.
So any imagery that portrays us as violent, stupid or lazy is always going to permeate popular culture.
Its how they cope.
OK, so you're saying the ability for people to lash back would be different, not so much that the exposure would necessarily be worse.When Rocker/Romanowski made their comments, where would the general public voice their displeasure? Writing an editorial in the local paper, the occasinal SI/ESPN poll, what? Having a platform like Twitter is VERY powerful for getting your voice heard by many others. Obviously for guys like Rocker, what he said is what's going to be tied to him until the day he dies. However, I do feel as though if those comments were made in 2014, the outcome would be much worse.I hear this 'social media era' thing thrown around too many times where one key element is forgotten: there was still exposure.I think things would be vastly different for guys like Rocker/Romanowski had their incidents happened during the social media era. I think it makes a HUGE difference as far as the amount of vitriol directed towards some of these guys.
In the John Rocker/Bill Romanowski era, I still knew of Prime Time's ego, I still knew of Bobby Bonilla telling a reporter "Make your move" in a post game interview, and I still knew of Barkley saying he's not a role model.
Yes, to your point, I think things would have been different for guys like Rocker, but it's not like the difference is from 'no exposure; able to hide' to 'on blast'.
OK, so you're saying the ability for people to lash back would be different, not so much that the exposure would necessarily be worse.
I agree. Sure, Rocker (and Marge Schott) got a lot of heat for their comments, but in 2014, the backlash would definitely be much worst because so many social vehicles are in place that weren't even an idea yet in 199_.
If he's applying that literally... like he literally thinks EVERY white person is racist and harbors negative thoughts/feelings towards black people because EVERY white person views black people as lazy and aggressive... then yes, I get what you're saying.This is quite the generalization. Don't you think?Its kinda simple to me.
This is a country that was founded upon the tenet that "All men are created equal", well except the ones we treat as property and base our entire economy on the exploitation of their free labor.
In order for White America to handle the cognitive dissonance that is associated with the treatment of Black people in this country they have to look at us as inhuman or subhuman.
So any imagery that portrays us as violent, stupid or lazy is always going to permeate popular culture.
Its how they cope.
I mean, any one can flip what you said and relate that to you making a generalization of white people as well. Kind of what you're accusing white people of doing in the first place. Get what I mean?
I'm not trying to come at you, but I'm trying to bring up discussion.
If he's applying that literally... like he literally thinks EVERY white person is racist and harbors negative thoughts/feelings towards black people because EVERY white person views black people as lazy and aggressive... then yes, I get what you're saying.
But as a general statement, what he said is spot on. I try to explain to people the difficulty in an ENTIRE culture accepting a group of people that they had all collectively oppressed, and how that task is surely not going to be completed in just a few decades, and it has only been a few decades since segregation has been abolished.
Just like my last response, I get what you're trying to say, but this right here is nowhere close to accurate:What's amazing is that we're currently experiencing an entire generation of people growing up to think Muslims are violent and are all terrorists. What happened to blacks decades ago is now happening to Muslims in America.If he's applying that literally... like he literally thinks EVERY white person is racist and harbors negative thoughts/feelings towards black people because EVERY white person views black people as lazy and aggressive... then yes, I get what you're saying.
But as a general statement, what he said is spot on. I try to explain to people the difficulty in an ENTIRE culture accepting a group of people that they had all collectively oppressed, and how that task is surely not going to be completed in just a few decades, and it has only been a few decades since segregation has been abolished.
For example--When you hear about terrorism, what do you hear first? Islamic terrorism. Whenever we hear about all the terrorist acts happening in the Middle East, we hear about the Islamic State being responsible for it. This new war we're facing. It's a war against terrorim, but they want to name is a war against Islamic Terrorim. The media is cleverly conditioning our minds to synomously relate terrorism to an entire religion. A religion that means peace!
Just like my last response, I get what you're trying to say, but this right here is nowhere close to accurate:
"What happened to blacks decades ago is now happening to Muslims in America."
Not even, man.
Yes, the overall perception/opinion of Muslims is extremely poor, and not just in this country, but suffering the same thing as what black people went through for centuries? Nah.
As far as the religious angle... actually, I better leave that one alone or everyone's jimmies'll get rustled.
OK, so you're saying the ability for people to lash back would be different, not so much that the exposure would necessarily be worse.
I agree. Sure, Rocker (and Marge Schott) got a lot of heat for their comments, but in 2014, the backlash would definitely be much worst because so many social vehicles are in place that weren't even an idea yet in 199_.
Agreed 100%
Had Rocker said what he said now, he would've been eaten alive by the media and probably suspended for the year
That fool about to be on celebrity survivor lmaoooo
I was a fan of that sexist/racist bastard for some reason. Rather you wear it on your sleeve so I know where you stand. The closet **** is for the birds
I think things would be vastly different for guys like Rocker/Romanowski had their incidents happened during the social media era. I think it makes a HUGE difference as far as the amount of vitriol directed towards some of these guys.
Welp, now we shall see how the media handles Michael Phelps situation.
Wow! Haha! Dude is arguably the greatest Olympian ever. He always matter. The media should be more outraged because this isn't his first time being in trouble, plus he represents the country.
I've seen it reported, what else are you looking for on this one? DUIs generally don't get much more than he initial story unless there was an accident.
And Olympic athletes only matter around the Games, otherwise nobody knows what they are doing nor care