"... which I began after reading only the Daily News article. I almost deleted the post entirely rather than continuing it the way I did."
What I was writing in the draft of a post when I decided to edit it into the form you see right here. I was going to confess that I was averse to discussing the very thing that The Daily News censored from its article, and then I realized that I was too sensitive to talk about that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Huh??
Is there a link to follow?
What are we supposed to get from this?
That you only write about topics that interest you? I think we knew that.
That news articles can be slanted and misleading and seem more interesting (or generate more outrage) when facts are selectively omitted? I think we knew that too.
What would be interesting would be knowing what subject you found too "sensitive" to broach.
How about a hint... is it the A-rod story? The cocaine-buying Congressman?
Looks like the Daily News covers a lot of crime.
If you don't appreciate the puzzle to be solved here, move on.
This post is a confession, but I'm not giving any more clues.
At the time of this post, the NY Daily News top story was about
the woman whose baby was killed in a murder-suicide attempt by her ex...not seeing anything censored in that article compared to other site's coverage, but there are sensitive topics aplenty.
Okay, I'll give another clue.
This is a story prominently featured at Drudge today, with multiple links. I went to the Daily News story and was in the middle of doing the post, then clicked on another link, where an additional element was featured, and I realized if I'd seen that first, I wouldn't even have begun a post. I was going to write frankly about how I, like the Daily News, felt like censoring the subject, and in trying to write even that, I realized I didn't want to.
So, the 'knock-out game' and its racial undertones.
What, the knockout game is still around? that is so 2012. Or was it 2011.
Ok, so it's the Knockout Game, and the Daily News story didn't mention the racial element (it's blacks hitting whites), and you were going to do a post about not mentioning race in writing about this, but then you followed the WND link and found that it discussed that very issue.
So?
It's this one, right?
Or, this one?
Don't worry. Eric Holder is on the case.
Wow!
They are clubbing women.
I blame the iPhone as well. I can't believe people walk down the street with earplugs, and music in their ears.
Of course, my original concern is an automobile jumping the curb, but I now know there is another reason to be vigilant.
I was going to write frankly about how I, like the Daily News, felt like censoring the subject, and in trying to write even that, I realized I didn't want to.
I wonder how many lives this censorship will cost. White people need to learn to avoid people who look like they could be our president's son.
I noted this in a post about wildings a few months ago: When these stories appear, especially the bowdlerized versions that cravenly omit the race of the perps, the comments on those stories can get really racist. REALLY racist.
Why do you suppose that is? I don't believe it's just because people are generally racist. But the dishonesty and sniveling PC-ness are so frustrating, it makes people want to lash out and somehow retaliate against those who are unjustifiably protected. And in comments, maybe the only way to shine a light on what is being concealed is to be hurtful. To overcompensate.
The point is, if you want to reduce racial animosity, if you really want less racism, you can't be a lying weasel on racial issues. It won't help, and it will do harm.
I'm not sure being "sensitive" and ducking the issue is a great strategy, either.
For Americans of a particular age and social experience, there appears to be an everlasting attachment to Civil Rights era fantasies of future race relations. This creates areas of political/philosophical/scientific inquiry that are essentially taboo. I view our hostess as a national treasure. Still, her great powers of observation and analysis are rendered effectively impotent at the edge of taboo. There are things to discuss. I can hold the ideas of freedom of association and equality under the law simultaneously. The latter day Civil Rights industry, an engine of manufactured grievance, is a mockery of the ideals of the past. Young blacks are forgiven barbarities. We need to talk about this. You know it.
My guess:
You were writing a post on the "knockout game" article, with the gist that the Daily News was blurring the faces of the victims, probably so that readers can't tell their race.
And then you clicked on the Pope Francis piece.
Right?
Do I get a prize?
Now that a Congresswoman has been mugged in this way, will you get over your dangerous squeemishness?
Drudge has it right on top this morning. Of course, there is something not quite right about the color of that fist.
What about the Chinese heritage congress woman who was knocked down and robbed by a deracinated perp in DC. Some un-named groups hate orientals more than they hate whites—so I have heard.
Post a Comment