You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. If a White, Southern, Republican said about "inner-city kids partaking in violence":
"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and
If a White, Southern, Republican said about "inner-city kids partaking in violence":
"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."
Would there be much outrage? Would there be calls for him or her to step down? What say you?
John Edwards said that on MTV. And I've seen the entire answer he had to the question. This quote is out of context. Not Bill O'Reilly "out of context" but really out of context.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
John Edwards said that on MTV. And I've seen the entire answer he had to the question. This quote is out of context. Not Bill O'Reilly "out of context" but really out of context.
Not a trap. A legitimate question. Yes, John Edwards said it. So? I'm asking if a Republican said what he did, if there would be outrage.
As far as out of context, I'd like to see the whole quote then. As typical, the "juicy" bits are what we hear. Though, curious how Edwards quote is out of context, but Bill O'Reilly wasn't taken out of context.
Quoting out of context is irresponsible. You should know better.
-_Sf
I copy/pasted from an article. I don't watch MTV anymore. Again, I'd like to see the whole exchange. From what I can see of the quote, there isn't anything "wrong" with it, but it could certainly be interpreted to be insensitive. My only comment is whether there would be any fallout if it were in the hypothetical I proposed. Why don't you guys give me your opinion?
So, we're all saying context. There are questions where that's a well-thought out answer and there are other questions where that's incendiary.
Qa. What can we do solve the gang problem that is so appealing to inner-city black kids?
Qb. How do we stop the violence in Atlanta?
A. "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."
Interesting how that context issue is still in play.
-_Sf
Last edited by seraphim; September 29th, 2007 at 11:45 AM.
So, we're all saying context. There are questions where that's a well-thought out answer and there are other questions where that's incendiary.
Qa. What can we do solve the gang problem that is so appealing to inner-city black kids?
Qb. How do we stop the violence in Atlanta?
A. "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."
Interesting how that context issue is still in play.
-_Sf
Like I said, I don't think there is anything "wrong" with what he said. The second half of it is where he made a mistake. He's saying that pretty soon, black male's will only be dead or in jail. That's INCREDIBLY ignorant to say. He's a politician, HE should know better. I can almost promise you that if my hypothetical would occur, there would be many people pointing to the amount of black males in college and in professional positions.
Here Smythe, video of the whole answer. I tried YouTube but only got the first 57 seconds (which contains the quote you put up) and some typical shoddy right wing blogger stuff about racism. So the first thing i saw with the whole answer I found on Google from some left wing blog I've never heard of/seen.
Personally, if a Republican were to have said it, there would be a "Ya-Hoo!" at the end. Or maybe a "Yipee" if it was one of the closet gay Republicans.
Here Smythe, video of the whole answer. I tried YouTube but only got the first 57 seconds (which contains the quote you put up) and some typical shoddy right wing blogger stuff about racism. So the first thing i saw with the whole answer I found on Google from some left wing blog I've never heard of/seen.
Also, having heard the entire O'Reilly bit on Sylvia's, I can say that he is ACTUALLY ignorant, not just portrayed as so.
So, from what I can get out of that clip is that Edwards offers solutions for education and others, but I still don't get how he's saying the only option for black inner-city youths will be either death or prison. That is what would be picked up on by left-leaners if it were a Republican from the south.
You can take that Bill O'Reilly bit and show it as an example for crying out loud.
Here's what you're hearing in the news right now about it:
"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."
...but you don't hear any of these comments that were right after.
"It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin."
The guy spends an hour talking about how whites get their perception of black culture from what they see in the news (rap stars, inner city gangs, Michael Vick), and it's not really true at all. Yet, all that the media latches on to is quotes without their full context. He wasn't surprised that people weren't yelling for no "MF-in iced tea", he was saying that it's silly to think that they would be.
So, from what I can get out of that clip is that Edwards offers solutions for education and others, but I still don't get how he's saying the only option for black inner-city youths will be either death or prison. That is what would be picked up on by left-leaners if it were a Republican from the south.
I disagree. You see left-leaners pick on Democrats all the time. A week or two ago Sharpton and Jackson accused Obama once more of not being "black enough" because he didn't speak out enough (in their view) about the Jena 6. Don Imus, a shock-jock liberal, was decried by primarily the left-leaners.
If a Republican were to answer that same question the way Edwards did, by talking about public education reform, making prisons more rehabilitative, fixing sentencing issues and so on, the left would be delighted despite the hyperbole. Instead the typical Republican would talk about the disintegration of the family unit... something the government can't and really shouldn't do anything about.
Quote:
You can take that Bill O'Reilly bit and show it as an example for crying out loud.
Here's what you're hearing in the news right now about it:
"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."
...but you don't hear any of these comments that were right after.
"It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin."
The guy spends an hour talking about how whites get their perception of black culture from what they see in the news (rap stars, inner city gangs, Michael Vick), and it's not really true at all. Yet, all that the media latches on to is quotes without their full context. He wasn't surprised that people weren't yelling for no "MF-in iced tea", he was saying that it's silly to think that they would be.
A few differences I see here. First, Edwards has apologized for using his "sweeping generalization." O'Reilly has attacked everybody else. "The Media can't be trusted; if I wouldn' go to prison or Hell I'd strangle these people!" Just apologize and get over it Bill.
Secondly, O'Reilly said "I couldn't get over the fact..." Whether he's playing to his audience or he actually couldn't get over the fact shows profound ignorance. Edwards was using hyperbole, he's not ignorant.
Thirdly, I'm glad that O'Reilly is trying to educate his audience in this issue but he has seemingly fallen victim to his own satirical protege, Stephen Colbert. Colbert frequently says: "I don't see race." and this O'Reilly bit screams that to me. People should realize that recognizing race, cultural differences and all is OK but saying "we're all the same" is not helpful at all in combating real racism, and is in fact a form of mild racism in itself.
Last edited by OddManRush; October 1st, 2007 at 08:19 PM.
Despite the current American trend, I was raised that two wrongs don't make a right. The corollary to that is just because you're less wrong doesn't mean your more right.
Being better than O'Reilly doesn't win you any points in my book. Using sweeping generalizations is fine as long as push-broom is required and not the jewelers' brush. Again, context is key toward everything.
And in case you don't know, who you are, and what you've said before also plays into context. Hence, a white Democrat, can get away with saying racially obtuse statements, but the same Republican can't. The context of being Republican is not understanding the current problems with American minorities, no matter if it's true or not.
It's probably the same reason blacks get to call each other ******s, but poor white folk are left out, there's some innate context there that whites can't, nor should be able to, shake.
-_Sf
Last edited by seraphim; October 1st, 2007 at 06:50 PM.
Despite the current American trend, I was raised that two wrongs don't make a right. The corollary to that is just because you're less wrong doesn't mean your more right.
Being better than O'Reilly doesn't win you any points in my book. Using sweeping generalizations is fine as long as push-broom is required and not the jewelers' brush. Again, context is key toward everything.
And in case you don't know, who you are, and what you've said before also plays into context. Hence, a white Democrat, can get away with saying racially obtuse statements, but the same Republican can't. The context of being Republican is not understanding the current problems with American minorities, no matter if it's true or not.
It's probably the same reason blacks get to call each other ******s, but poor white folk are left out, there's some innate context there that whites can't, nor should be able to, shake.
-_Sf
Have to say, that's an EXCELLENT post. The third paragraph there is absolutely what I feel is wrong with people and politics today. One side is excused because of (real or imagined) history while the other side gets blindsided. On the left, you get away with racially insensitive comments, while being bludgeoned for ANY suggestion that war is the wrong way to deal with something. On the right, you can get away with military actions because you're supporting/defending/whatever, but you get skewered if there is the slightest suggestion that you don't agree with the status quo in regards to affirmative action or any other outreach program. It's really a shame.
SmytheKing
So, hypothetically. . . 
