• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Popeyes employee body slams woman outside restaurant, MSM largely a no-show

Ahlevah said:
Not normally, no. I consulted these sources when I was researching this incident. (Two of them I linked in my original post.) Most of my reading and viewing is concentrated in the financial press: Barron's, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, etc. I also watch CNBC with a dab of Fox News.
Click to expand...

Do you find it to be national news?
 
truthatallcost said:
ecofarm isn't a progressive- his views fluctuate depending upon geography. He believes in manifest destiny and the theory of a master race when it comes to a certain country in the Mideast which I'm probably not allowed to mention here, and then harbors completely opposing views when it comes to Europe and the United States. I respect progressives on some level for at least being consistent in their world view. ecofarm is not consistent, however. He's fine with keeping blacks locked up in cages and camps if they sully the soil of the country AIPAC works for, but then turns around and supports breaking the ribcage of a 55 year old American woman who said a bad word while in the presence of black people. He's far, far worse than the average misguided American progressive.
Click to expand...
... virulent stuff you're getting into these days.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
Inexcusable......I do not care what words were spoken to myself or anyone, its never cause to resort to physical violence.
 
Ahlevah said:
Honestly, Joe, I think you're being disingenuous. Many innocent people are murdered every year, and in most major cities they'll be lucky if they're noted in a sentence or two in a weekly police blotter. And, yes, the police were accused of mishandling their investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin. But when did the mishandling of an investigation by a local police department into possible criminal activity become something that would transfix the nation?
Click to expand...
The nation yes, not the media. The reporting only picked up pace when the public (or a noisy subset of it) started making something out of it. It shouldn’t have but that is because the media isn’t actually interested in creating any kind of unbalance, they’ll report whatever makes them the most money. If you keep lapping up what they report (if only just to moan about it), they’ll keep reporting it.

You’re still not comparing like-with-like here. We’re talking about a case where a person was randomly killed in the street and there was an accusation (wrongly IMO) that the authorities, local and federal, were protecting the suspect on the basis of race. Any way you look at it, that is infinitely more significant than a petty fight outside a restaurant. And all of that is entirely independent of the race (actual or presumed) of the people involved in either.

Ahlevah said:
If we're ever going to have a useful discussion on race relations in this country, it would helpful if it were a two-way street.
Click to expand...
Sure. The first step would be to admit that your entire nation has a fundamental issue of race, to accept you are part of the problem without an immediate “but those people are worse” exception (especially where “those people” are defined by skin colour).

Ahlevah said:
When it comes to black hatred of whites…
Click to expand...
In general terms, blacks don’t hate whites any more (or less) than whites hate blacks. They look at you in the same way you look at them. The question you all need to ask yourselves is why you are treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour?
 
yankintx said:
It got reported on CBS and NBC. Why this should be national news I have no idea, hardly seems worthy of any national headline.
Click to expand...
Because there is a nice clip to show where people get to watch it and the ratings go up. To the network, that represents very important news

Amazing what cell phones turn into a vital story these days.

When a cop does this whatever his race, to someone , that is your taxes at work. That is the personification of your government in action. And that is news by any definition, whether there is video or not.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
Because there is a nice clip to show where people get to watch it and the ratings go up. To the network, that represents very important news

Amazing what cell phones turn into a vital story these days.

When a cop does this whatever his race, to someone , that is your taxes at work. That is the personification of your government in action. And that is news by any definition, whether there is video or not.
Click to expand...

But this was not a cop, your going on a tangent not related to the thread.
 
Body slamming a woman outside of a wrestling ring should not be socially acceptable.

Why does it seem like violence is more socially acceptable in modern times?
 
yankintx said:
But this was not a cop, your going on a tangent not related to the thread.
Click to expand...
The scope of the thread is defined by the OP, not the article or your post. Insofar as the OP compared this media treatment that of a white cop abusing a black suspect in similar fashion, my reply is not tangential at all. It is directly on point to that particular hypothetical , so described in the OP, being a poorly constructed comparison.
 
danielpalos said:
Body slamming a woman outside of a wrestling ring should not be socially acceptable.

Why does it seem like violence is more socially acceptable in modern times?
Click to expand...

Violence has always been socially acceptable in all times, just the times standard of acceptable violence. For instance, this was not acceptable and the perps were arrested and will face consequences. In not so modern times it was acceptable to put severed heads on spikes on a large city bridge for hundreds of years yet we wouldn't begin to dream of doing that in modern times.
 
danielpalos said:
Why does it seem like violence is more socially acceptable in modern times?
Click to expand...
I don't ****ing know.

Seems to me that we were much more violent ins the past.
In living memory, wooden paddles to hit children were well sanctioned and lynchings were not uncommon.
If we go back further than that we get into all the various sorts of tortures and punishments which have been sanctioned by various states and nations.

So I haven't a clue why it seems that the pas was less violent than today.
Not a ****ing clue.
'Cause violence was not less socially acceptable than today.
 
This is the common law for the common defense in our Republic:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
 
HonestJoe said:
You’re still not comparing like-with-like here. We’re talking about a case where a person was randomly killed in the street and there was an accusation (wrongly IMO) that the authorities, local and federal, were protecting the suspect on the basis of race. Any way you look at it, that is infinitely more significant than a petty fight outside a restaurant. And all of that is entirely independent of the race (actual or presumed) of the people involved in either.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they weren't identical. You point to the fact that in one instance the victim ended up dead, while in the other she "only" ended up in the hospital with multiple fractures and will require months of rehabilitation. You point to the involvement of the authorities. I could do the same at this point. It appears as though the restaurant staff treated her with hostility from the beginning, with their actions motivated principally on the basis of her race. Isn't that a violation of her civil rights? Where are the calls for a Justice Department investigation? NOWHERE! Because when it comes to enforcement of federal civil rights law, there is no such thing equal protection. It's a double standard, a fairy tale on par with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Also, I'm going to maintain my point that it wasn't the death of Martin that made it remarkable, nor was it the alleged mishandling of it. It gained prominence because of the races of the participants and their alleged motivations for the actions that they took.

HonestJoe said:
Sure. The first step would be to admit that your entire nation has a fundamental issue of race, to accept you are part of the problem without an immediate “but those people are worse” exception (especially where “those people” are defined by skin colour).
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, when someone uses a word representing an absolute such as "entire," I already know their argument is flawed, since there are very few absolutes. I'm not going to accept your "first step," admitting that I'm "part of the problem" for simply asking whether the constant vilification of whites and engendering of a victim mentality among blacks is contributing to racial animosity among a subset of the black population. I won't apologize for asking those questions, because that's what free inquiry in a free society is supposed to be about. If we're ever going to get to the kind of fair, honest, free, and open society I desire then we'll need to hit the roadblocks to that goal head on, and we won't do that by living in denial that not all of the problems and issues confronting blacks are the result of systemic white racism.

HonestJoe said:
In general terms, blacks don’t hate whites any more (or less) than whites hate blacks. They look at you in the same way you look at them. The question you all need to ask yourselves is why you are treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour?
Click to expand...

Look, I chose to leave California for good and move to a state that's 40% black. I work closely with many blacks, and I've had some frank but always civil discussions with them over the years on issues of race. We generally agree to disagree, but usually the discussions revolve around incidents that took place somewhere else and not in Mississippi--Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Falcon Heights, Minnesota. The South in general has a legacy it likely will never erase, but overall I think race relations here are better now than they were decades ago. But, yes, your question is perfectly valid, and, at the risk of stating an absolute, I think its contention seems to be universal and not something confined just to the United States. So maybe its root cause is something deeper, as in it's in the nature of men to try to justify their own misery or change of station by blaming someone else for it, whether that "someone else" is from a different country, worships a different God, or was simply born with a different skin color. Maybe some honest introspection into human nature is where we need to begin.
 
Last edited:
Hatred begets hatred, violence more violence
 
danielpalos said:
Why does it seem like violence is more socially acceptable in modern times?
Click to expand...

Has it though? Violence has always been there and in many ways been socially acceptable. Before social media and the internet it was not uncommon to see fights at certain establishments each weekend without it being posted to the news. I remember an eating joint in Colorado that would have at least 3-4 fights a Saturday afternoon/night there. Usually the scuffle would happen and end just as quick as it started.

Violence has always been socially acceptable. We can show violent TV shows, movies, reality-tv etc. all day long to young kids. But god's wrath be placed upon the TV network if they show a .25 second nip slip on the airwaves.
 
Praxas said:
Has it though? Violence has always been there and in many ways been socially acceptable. Before social media and the internet it was not uncommon to see fights at certain establishments each weekend without it being posted to the news. I remember an eating joint in Colorado that would have at least 3-4 fights a Saturday afternoon/night there. Usually the scuffle would happen and end just as quick as it started.

Violence has always been socially acceptable. We can show violent TV shows, movies, reality-tv etc. all day long to young kids. But god's wrath be placed upon the TV network if they show a .25 second nip slip on the airwaves.
Click to expand...

When was it ever socially acceptable to body slam somebody for questioning their receipt and getting into a heated verbal argument. Or, shooting someone for cutting in line.
 
danielpalos said:
When was it ever socially acceptable to body slam somebody for questioning their receipt and getting into a heated verbal argument. Or, shooting someone for cutting in line.
Click to expand...

You asked when violence was socially acceptable, I answered and I gave examples to my answers. If that doesn't satisfy your soap box rant, deal with it.

Also we weren't talking about LEGALITY. The guy doing the body slamming was clearly guilty and he will most likely be going to jail for a long time as he should.
 
Praxas said:
You asked when violence was socially acceptable, I answered and I gave examples to my answers. If that doesn't satisfy your soap box rant, deal with it.

Also we weren't talking about LEGALITY. The guy doing the body slamming was clearly guilty and he will most likely be going to jail for a long time as he should.
Click to expand...

Lynching somebody is not the same as shooting somebody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom