Riots in Ferguson MO. USA

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Consistent? What shootings would you label "inconsistent"? lain:

Consistent... meaning regularly occurring in frequency. :sigh:

What lack of media coverage?

Almost the utter lack of media coverage for similar situations in the racial inverse.

Comparable coverage?

Yes.

How frequent is either?

Frequent enough for there to be gross inequity in reporting relative to victim skin color.

How unusual are the particular circumstances? In any event it's likely that white on black violence pushes buttons that aren't on par for any number of reasons we can get into.

Ummm.... exactly. Those "buttons" are part of the inequity. You just attempt to mask that with whatever degree of excuse as justification.

Those "buttons" have been wired into a panel for inequitous "pushing". Black on white violence doesn't get the press or public dander up. You're oblivious to cultural engineering of such mindsets.

There have been several recent shootings of whites by blacks. The Utah example, in particular, is much more inexcusable with a white teen having ear buds in and being gunned down.

Go make all your usual excuses and pedantic pontificating to obscure actual subject matter behind rhetoric.

No, but the usual primary usage of the word involves:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Merriam Webster

And that's not the exclusive bastion of white minds and hearts and behavior, by FAR. But thanks, Al Sharpton. I'll just call ya "Rev".

That tends to be a majority vs minority position, whatever the majority happens to be.

That's merely one facet. Belief is an individual issue of an individual heart. The very definition is predicated upon belief. That's not just aggregate.

Fail.

So in Western societies among which our own numbers that tends to be about those of us who are white.

Since "white' includes any number of various ethnicities and mixtures, I'd have to say you're wrong. Is a Brit a German by ethnicity? Is a light-skinned European-mix individual with 1/3 American Indian ethnicity considered "white"?

Why is "white" the only nebulous "catch-all" for light-skinned people. I'm 25% (at least, possibly 33% or more) Cherokee, with the remaining ethnicity being a mix of German, French, Irish, and Welsh. Is that really all the same ethnicity?

I'd say there are many demarcations that are absent for "whites" that are accounted for with other ethnicities. "White" isn't really a race, according to this above context. This is part of the problem of this whole conceptualization. Emphasis on pigmentation of any kind exacerbates all the problems, and you're complicit in that whole mindset.

Certainly there are members of minorities who will think themselves racially superior, but most of them, historically, have been powerless to do anything with that particularly ignorant belief.

Oh, so now it's about power to implement change rather than some inherent factor.

I spend much time in the prison system at various levels, and working with many social organizations in my community of 60,000. The above is an ignorant assertion.

That's the why of the focus. It's not a plot or an agenda so much as a reflection of empowerment.

More side-stepping to justify and condone.

In South Africa at present you have everything you need to see the reverse in play, as you would in any number of African countries.

Same cultural engineering worldwide. You just don't know what it is or by whom, unfortunately.

Or some people simply disagree with you without all that other high concept business attaching.

Others are free to be wrong and self-indulgent. As for high- versus low- context, I haven't addressed your posts because all you've referred to is Hall's anthropological works that are so prolific. There are other facets, and you don't really want to understand.

If we spent a nice two-hours over lunch and discussed these topics, you'd end up doe-eyed and mind-blown with illumination of all I'm referring to on a very general level.

You don't know what you don't know. And you don't know that the very foundational patterns of your heart and mind have been sculpted by language in a way that would leave you incensed if you knew of the violation.

The greatest device of the enemy is language. And whether you refer to it linguistically as high-context or in Hall's inversion of referring to English as low-context, the truth is the same in spite of the flipped semantics. So focusing on those appellations is just yet another way that language passively influences logos versus rhema.

Come on down to the coffee shop for a bit. You'll be reeling in no time. That's why it's so frustrating to have to deal with it online. Penetrating all the kevlar concepts manufactured in men's minds is often an exercise in futility and misunderstanding.

Maybe I'll start a dedicated thread in the near future. Until then, your bulletproof thought balloons will remain unperforated by the truth that you would ultimately recognize if given the opportunity.:juggle:

 

[resurrected]

I spend much time in the prison system ...

is your parole hearing coming up soon?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

is your parole hearing coming up soon?

I'm opting for the stylish ankle bracelet with GPS tracking.

 

[Town Heretic]

...the utter lack of media coverage for similar situations in the racial inverse.Yes. Frequent enough for there to be gross inequity in reporting relative to victim skin color.

By what factor? That is, I'm interested in any empirical study you might know of establishing the degree of distinction between both the frequency of occurrence and the disparity in coverage.

I understand how you feel about it, but I don't know how reasonable your feeling is.

Ummm.... exactly. Those "buttons" are part of the inequity. You just attempt to mask that with whatever degree of excuse as justification.

An invitation to further discussion isn't an attempt to mask anything.

...There have been several recent shootings of whites by blacks. The Utah example, in particular, is much more inexcusable with a white teen having ear buds in and being gunned down.

I'd agree white (we'll come to that in a moment) people don't tend to have the same sense of unity and don't respond the same way that minorities tend to and, again, for a number of reasons we can discuss if you'd like. One advantage of that more unified front is that it can galvanize and demand attention in a way larger and more diverse groups, especially in terms of self identifying, won't tend to.

I suspect that's what we're really dealing with here, in the consideration of what you call an inequity. It's an interesting term. All inequities aren't moral ills, you know.

Go make all your usual excuses and pedantic pontificating to obscure actual subject matter behind rhetoric.

That was funny. It wasn't, however, reflective of much more than your own bias/blinkers.

I offered a literal, primary definition and usual usage and got...

And that's not the exclusive bastion of white minds and hearts and behavior, by FAR. But thanks, Al Sharpton. I'll just call ya "Rev".

Why even quote me on the point? Just call the name and get on with it.

That's merely one facet. Belief is an individual issue of an individual heart. The very definition is predicated upon belief. That's not just aggregate.

Fail.

I agree that you failed to respond to any part of the quote that proceeded it and any particular posit of mine within it.

Since "white' includes any number of various ethnicities and mixtures, I'd have to say you're wrong. Is a Brit a German by ethnicity? Is a light-skinned European-mix individual with 1/3 American Indian ethnicity considered "white"?

When people speak informally of race they don't tend to say Caucasian, but instead use the term "white". I didn't realize my doing so was going to generate this much of a problem for you. But substitute the term Caucasian instead if it helps.

Oh, so now it's about power to implement change rather than some inherent factor.

If you've had any sort of background in sociology then you know the answer to that one. Racism finds most of its relevance in empowerment and discussions about racism are almost always about the impact of it on minorities by the empowered majority.

So why don't you name call again while not actually addressing the point that proceeded it...

The above is an ignorant assertion.

Feel better?

More side-stepping to justify and condone.

I'll have to side step the first time, which I haven't. I also haven't attempted to justify or condone, which is likely why you didn't set out anything more than the motion of your fingers to connect the charge with the conclusion. You must be really nervous, dedicating so much of your time to this and so very little to sustaining or explaining your actual points, assuming you have them.

...As for high- versus low- context, I haven't addressed your posts because all you've referred to is Hall's anthropological works that are so prolific.

Then flesh out my reading by noting what source/context you're using.

I asked you for your source material to see where you're getting your understanding from. Your terms needed a context given you weren't inclined to explain them, only use them like punctuation. Given you ducked that request repeatedly (and still are) continuing to use the jargon like some sort of authority in the mist... If I speak to and of a definition or a study gives me a particular point I cite it and/or reference it so we can speak meaningfully if you're unaware of it.

That's what anyone does who is confident in his foundation and understanding.

You don't do that. And it's reasonable to suspect that you either lack confidence in it or in your grasp of it and leaving it in that mist protects you and/or it from scrutiny. So for all I know you're simply abusing Hall's work like someone with a decent vocabulary and a survey course under their belt might or your source material isn't peer reviewed and established in its validity.

There are other facets, and you don't really want to understand.

Yes, because that's what people who ask you for reading material and source authority are...disinterested. lain:

If we spent a nice two-hours over lunch and discussed these topics, you'd end up doe-eyed and mind-blown with illumination of all I'm referring to on a very general level.

I concede your glowing self estimation.

You don't know what you don't know.

Who doesn't?

And you don't know that the very foundational patterns of your heart and mind have been sculpted by language in a way that would leave you incensed if you knew of the violation.

I've spoken to the metamethodological problems and I've been talking about context a good bit here.

The greatest device of the enemy is language.

Language is a context. Anyone who speaks more than one language understands that words can and do, to some extent, shape our understanding of both concept and experience.

And whether you refer to it linguistically as high-context or in Hall's inversion of referring to English as low-context,

Inversion in relation to what contrary or differing authority established by what, again?

So focusing on those appellations is just yet another way that language passively influences logos versus rhema.

And yet you're the one drawing them in (those "appellations" or, as most people know the notion, titles/names).

Come on down to the coffee shop for a bit. You'll be reeling in no time.

Go plant a fig tree to sit under if it pleases you. But neither that nor the willingness/hubris to declare or infer it will actually make you the Buddha in any particular form or fashion.

 

[resurrected]

That was clever enough. To anyone interested, what he did by calling Hall's works prolific (and I'd bet I couldn't find more than a handful of people here who even know who we're talking about, let alone what he wrote) is to infer a commonness in it and my understanding. Mostly it was about dismissing what must have made him uncomfortable, the understanding that he couldn't use magic words to intimidate the locals.

duhhhh - us stupid folks sure are glad you splaned it to us

 

[PureX]

"The dog ate my homework" is a reason for not turning in my homework. The teacher says "Nevertheless, you must turn in the homework assignment and you will be late. I've heard "The dog ate my homework before!"
As to legitimate behavior? Put your homework in a secure place. Then the dog cannot eat it.
I am not offended. I don't buy it.
Tell it to the Marines!

So, if a human being is unable to anticipate all possible future events, and therefor is unable to protect himself against all those events, according to your way of thinking, he is responsible for whatever happens to him. Isn't that what you're saying, here?

 

[bybee]

So, if a human being is unable to anticipate all possible future events, and therefor is unable to protect himself against all those events, according to your way of thinking, he is responsible for whatever happens to him. Isn't that what you're saying, here?

No, oh great leaper to faulty conclusions! That is not at all what I am saying here.
One may not be responsible for what happens to him/her, BUT!!! One is absolutely responsible for one's response to the happening.
All we really have is our attitude. It is our attitude that determines our behavior. Sometimes we can do nothing. BUT, when we can do something, it is our choice and we are accountable for our choices.

 

[PureX]

No, oh great leaper to faulty conclusions! That is not at all what I am saying here.
One may not be responsible for what happens to him/her, BUT!!! One is absolutely responsible for one's response to the happening.
All we really have is our attitude. It is our attitude that determines our behavior. Sometimes we can do nothing. BUT, when we can do something, it is our choice and we are accountable for our choices.

Now you're just avoiding the issue.

You said there are no legitimate excuses. And you stated that position quite adamantly. But I pointed out to you that there ARE legitimate excuses, such as the dog actually eating the kid's homework. You then denied that this is a legitimate excuse because the kid should have anticipated the dog eating his homework, and safeguarded it. But I then pointed out that this was an unrealistic expectation, because we humans cannot foresee the future. And now you're just ignoring it.

My point was that unforeseen acts of fate ARE a legitimate excuse because they ARE a legitimate phenomenological problem that no human being can reasonably be expected to foresee and prevent. And I am still very curious about why you, and many other 'conservatives', are so disinclined to face and accept this aspect of our reality, and then cut other people some slack for it.

I would be very grateful if you could explain this to me, but I am beginning to suspect that you aren't even going to be able to recognize it, let alone give a reasonable explanation for it.



In this country, people become ill every day in ways that they cannot afford to pay to correct, or that simply cannot be corrected. They lose their jobs because they are ill. They lose their families because they fall into dept. And they lose hope because they cannot fix themselves, and because they are living in a society that wants them to just go away and die, so it doesn't have to pay to keep them alive.

This actually happens, every single day, to hundreds and perhaps thousands of our fellow citizens. And none of it is their fault, nor could anyone reasonably expect that they could somehow have avoided the fate that befell them. They have a legitimate excuse for their need of our economic help. Yet American conservatives seem to have a strange kind of blind spot when it comes to this very real aspect of life and suffering. They just can't seem to see that it's a real thing that happens to people, and that it could happen to them at any time, too. And instead, they focus on platitudes about attitude, and taking personal responsibility, and laziness and greed and jealousy; and they do so with such persistence and fervor that in their minds, it seems, legitimate misfortune, and legitimate excuse, and legitimate need just vanishes into thin air. While those people who have a legitimate need of their help, become invisible to them.

 

[quip]

I would be very grateful if you could explain this to me, but I am beginning to suspect that you aren't even going to be able to recognize it, let alone give a reasonable explanation for it.

I think conservatives simply lack empathy to that which resides outside their realm of experience. Everything and every behavior is processed through their exclusive lens.

This is problematic since their realm of experience can't encompass their presumed realm of influence.

 

[journey]

I think conservatives simply lack empathy to that which resides outside their realm of experience. Everything and every behavior is processed through their exclusive lens.

This is problematic since their realm of experience can't encompass their presumed realm of influence.

Liberal baloney for sale, but nobody wants it.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The dog ate my homework" is a reason for not turning in my homework. The teacher says "Nevertheless, you must turn in the homework assignment and you will be late. I've heard "The dog ate my homework before!"
As to legitimate behavior? Put your homework in a secure place. Then the dog cannot eat it.
I am not offended. I don't buy it.

I once received a large envelope with scraps of paper, and a note from Mom, explaining that the dog really did eat her daughter's homework.

It's like getting off for your grandmother's funeral. Not a problem, but you only get so many grandmothers.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think conservatives simply lack empathy to that which resides outside their realm of experience.

I think that may be true at the far end of that line, but in general there are studies that demonstrate conservatives are generous with both time and funds when it comes to charitable work, much of it going to people whose plights are outside of their realm of experience.

And there's a disconnect with some between the way they live and their rhetoric. I have a good friend who is like that and I liken it to Faulkner's take on racism. He said the Southern racist hates the race and loves the individual...without going into exception, that is what I experience when I observe my friend and many like him. Hard rhetoric aimed at groups and charitable practice with individuals and causes.

It can drive you crazy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

By what factor? That is, I'm interested in any empirical study you might know of establishing the degree of distinction between both the frequency of occurrence and the disparity in coverage.

I understand how you feel about it, but I don't know how reasonable your feeling is.

An invitation to further discussion isn't an attempt to mask anything.

I'd agree white (we'll come to that in a moment) people don't tend to have the same sense of unity and don't respond the same way that minorities tend to and, again, for a number of reasons we can discuss if you'd like. One advantage of that more unified front is that it can galvanize and demand attention in a way larger and more diverse groups, especially in terms of self identifying, won't tend to.

I suspect that's what we're really dealing with here, in the consideration of what you call an inequity. It's an interesting term. All inequities aren't moral ills, you know.

That was funny. It wasn't, however, reflective of much more than your own bias/blinkers.

I offered a literal, primary definition and usual usage and got...

Why even quote me on the point? Just call the name and get on with it.

I agree that you failed to respond to any part of the quote that proceeded it and any particular posit of mine within it.

When people speak informally of race they don't tend to say Caucasian, but instead use the term "white". I didn't realize my doing so was going to generate this much of a problem for you. But substitute the term Caucasian instead if it helps.

If you've had any sort of background in sociology then you know the answer to that one. Racism finds most of its relevance in empowerment and discussions about racism are almost always about the impact of it on minorities by the empowered majority.

So why don't you name call again while not actually addressing the point that proceeded it...

Feel better?

I'll have to side step the first time, which I haven't. I also haven't attempted to justify or condone, which is likely why you didn't set out anything more than the motion of your fingers to connect the charge with the conclusion. You must be really nervous, dedicating so much of your time to this and so very little to sustaining or explaining your actual points, assuming you have them.

Then flesh out my reading by noting what source/context you're using.

I asked you for your source material to see where you're getting your understanding from. Your terms needed a context given you weren't inclined to explain them, only use them like punctuation. Given you ducked that request repeatedly (and still are) continuing to use the jargon like some sort of authority in the mist... If I speak to and of a definition or a study gives me a particular point I cite it and/or reference it so we can speak meaningfully if you're unaware of it.

That's what anyone does who is confident in his foundation and understanding.

You don't do that. And it's reasonable to suspect that you either you lack confidence in it or in your grasp of it and leaving it in that mist protects you and/or it from scrutiny. So for all I know you're simply abusing Hall's work like someone with a decent vocabulary and a survey course under their belt might or your source material isn't peer reviewed and established in its validity.

Yes, because that's what people who ask you for reading material and source authority are...disinterested. lain:

I concede your glowing self estimation.

Who doesn't?

I've spoken to the metamethodological problems and I've been talking about context a good bit here.

Language is a context. Anyone who speaks more than one language understands that words can and do, to some extent, shape our understanding of both concept and experience.

Inversion in relation to what contrary or differing authority established by what, again?

And yet you're the one drawing them in (those "appellations" or, as most people know the notion, titles/names).

Go plant a fig tree to sit under if it pleases you. But neither that nor the willingness/hubris to declare or infer it will actually make you the Buddha in any particular form or fashion.

I don't really have the desire to take time to copiously respond and provide sources for enlightenment. There was a time when I'd exhaust every effort to do so, but there are more pressing things.

But my comments were because I've thought you were among the few that might actually be able to quickly absorb the language info to which I was referring in generalities. I can see that's likely futile, at least in this venue; so I'll leave you with your false impression that I'm just egomaniacal or narcissistic, or whatever.

On topic with the OP, and in regards to my comments about white racism being disallowed but black racism being a thriving catalyst for "progessives"...

http://youngcons.com/i-am-begging-you-to-watch-bill-whittles-take-on-michael-brown-and-ferguson/

 

[quip]

I think that may be true at the far end of that line, but in general there are studies that demonstrate conservatives are generous with both time and funds when it comes to charitable work, much of it going to people whose plights are outside of their realm of experience.

To a degree you're quite correct. Yes, I was painting with a broad brush....for effect.

Mayhap though, I'm not quite the optimist you seem to be.... in that 'hating the sin whilst loving the sinner' is not deemed an act of empathy.

 

[resurrected]

I think conservatives simply lack empathy to that which resides outside their realm of experience. Everything and every behavior is processed through their exclusive lens.

This is problematic since their realm of experience can't encompass their presumed realm of influence.

this is charitable giving by state:

 

[Town Heretic]

To a degree you're quite correct. Yes, I was painting with a broad brush....for effect.

Mayhap though, I'm not quite the optimist you seem to be.... in that 'hating the sin whilst loving the sinner' is not deemed an act of empathy.

It's all in the context. I can hate cancer while feeling compassion and hope for the fellow suffering it.

 

[resurrected]

It's all in the context. I can hate cancer while feeling compassion and hope for the fellow suffering it.

how much compassion and hope do you feel if she's poisoning the air with cigarette after cigarette while incessantly complaining how expensive the darned things are?

 

[PureX]

I think that may be true at the far end of that line, but in general there are studies that demonstrate conservatives are generous with both time and funds when it comes to charitable work, much of it going to people whose plights are outside of their realm of experience.

And there's a disconnect with some between the way they live and their rhetoric. I have a good friend who is like that and I liken it to Faulkner's take on racism. He said the Southern racist hates the race and loves the individual...without going into exception, that is what I experience when I observe my friend and many like him. Hard rhetoric aimed at groups and charitable practice with individuals and causes.

It can drive you crazy.

And especially so, because they continually vote for and support people who really would let our fellow citizens die under bridges, and who really do blame them for the misfortunes of fate, and the cruelty of an economy governed by greed, and who really are turning this nation into a profit machine with no interest or concern for the well being the people it destroys.

I have several conservative friends, too, who are generous as individuals, but who continually regurgitate the party line nonsense about the hoards of worthless, lazy, scum pretending to be in need so they can get some free money. And how the despicable democrats force us to pay them just so they can get their votes. And who fervently believe in the old "bootstraps" cure for everything, so long as it applies to the misfortunes of others. But the moment they find themselves in a pinch, they're the first one's in line at the public aid offices. And their reasoning is that, "I paid for the aid, so I should get some of it".

So much for the old "bootstraps" thing.

 

[resurrected]

if someone wants to live under a bridge, who are you to say they shouldn't?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Black Panthers Lead Death Chant for Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO

Death chants to officer in ferguson mo

This certainly isnt racist at all.