Addressing those that voted for the “lesser of two evils.”

[Watchmen]

You open by asking if we can have an honest debate. The rest of your opening post suggests otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

We all have implicit biases whether we want to admit it or not. We have biases concerning our gender, sex, ethnicity etc

While your rationalizing of implicit bias is interesting (and I would live to have a conversation about this), I am not so sure that answers my question.

What sort of implicit bias do you feel is responsible for the treatment of the KY grocery shooting vs. The PA synagogue shooting?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

While your rationalizing of implicit bias is interesting (and I would live to have a conversation about this), I am not so sure that answers my question.

What sort of implicit bias do you feel is responsible for the treatment of the KY grocery shooting vs. The PA synagogue shooting?

I'll answer this after my huddle and we get situated.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You open by asking if we can have an honest debate. The rest of your opening post suggests otherwise.

No. It was to bring out a point using optics to demonstrate a social hypocrisy. It is to stage my view point on why I would like theoretically an honest debate concerning the issue of 45 using those videos as segways.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

While your rationalizing of implicit bias is interesting (and I would live to have a conversation about this), I am not so sure that answers my question.

What sort of implicit bias do you feel is responsible for the treatment of the KY grocery shooting vs. The PA synagogue shooting?

To answer your question when referring to implicit bias in this case I don't think people care about things that do not directly affect them. I believe people more often than not are concerned with news that closely affects them. Like things that affect my as an African-American, I'm more often interested in news that affects the African-American community versus issues that affect the Maori-American community. that is not to say in the news the emotions of sadness when something tragic like murder happens, but the interest is different because what goes on in the urban community I am directly affected by it. The same can be said about issues with class, gender etc. I personally think the killings at the Kroger just doesn't illicit the same emotional response than it does with the attacks at the synagogue because I don't think people are as emotionally affected by it. This is why the whole color blind argument is moot.

 

[Curious George]

To answer your question when referring to implicit bias in this case I don't think people care about things that do not directly affect them. I believe people more often than not are concerned with news that closely affects them. Like things that affect my as an African-American, I'm more often interested in news that affects the African-American community versus issues that affect the Maori-American community. that is not to say in the news the emotions of sadness when something tragic like murder happens, but the interest is different because what goes on in the urban community I am directly affected by it. The same can be said about issues with class, gender etc. I personally think the killings at the Kroger just doesn't illicit the same emotional response than it does with the attacks at the synagogue because I don't think people are as emotionally affected by it. This is why the whole color blind argument is moot.

I hope you are wrong in essentially speculating that people care less about this incident, (or are less willing to discuss this incident) in part because of implicit racial bias.

 

[Augustus]

I personally think the killings at the Kroger just doesn't illicit the same emotional response than it does with the attacks at the synagogue because I don't think people are as emotionally affected by it. This is why the whole color blind argument is moot.

They were significantly different scale attacks. 11 people shot at a Synagogue is much more unusual than 2 people being shot at a store. 'News value' is not simply linear, but exponential based certain variables, and impact on society as a whole is largely connected to news value (and thus coverage).

The synagogue shooting would be more equivalent to the racist Charleston church shooting. Do you believe there was a significantly different response between these 2 incidents?

Seemed similar to me, but I don't live in the West or pay much attention to US news so can't really compare them beyond a superficial level.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

They were significantly different scale attacks. 11 people shot at a Synagogue is much more unusual than 2 people being shot at a store. 'News value' is not simply linear, but exponential based certain variables, and impact on society as a whole is largely connected to news value (and thus coverage).

The synagogue shooting would be more equivalent to the racist Charleston church shooting. Do you believe there was a significantly different response between these 2 incidents?

Seemed similar to me, but I don't live in the West or pay much attention to US news so can't really compare them beyond a superficial level.

That is one perspective. However some things people don't take an interest to because some groups and whatever they go through does not affect some people, case in point look at the confounding factors that contribute to inner city crime. Some people simply rather rely on stereotypes than look at confounding factors because it is easier to grasp that reality. Sure the media plays a part but it also indirectly places "newsworthy" value on tragedy which also in turn plays into the implicit biases of people.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I hope you are wrong in essentially speculating that people care less about this incident, (or are less willing to discuss this incident) in part because of implicit racial bias.

Of course I'm speculating but my speculation comes about using the litmus test of the "black on black crime" rhetoric from the right-wing narrative. For example people often cite black on black crime (as if they care) as a perspective and tactic to deflect from other social issues African-Americans bring up. You see, people outside the in group don't really care about people killing each other in the urban community, rather some use stereotypes as opposed to critically thinking about confounding factors that contribute to crime. Biases and stereotypes are easier to allocate behaviors of other people because these are easy accessible to the mind (considering most people aren't sociologist nobody takes time to break down factors). In short people don't care on the same frequency of different tragedies because all tragedies does not illicit the same emotional feelings. I'm sure if I plugged you up to an fMRI and showed you tragedies in Compton verses tragedies in the Ukraine I'm sure your brain would show me different results.

 

[Curious George]

That is one perspective. However some things people don't take an interest to because some groups and whatever they go through does not affect some people, case in point look at the confounding factors that contribute to inner city crime. Some people simply rather rely on stereotypes than look at confounding factors because it is easier to grasp that reality. Sure the media plays a part but it also indirectly places "newsworthy" value on tragedy which also in turn plays into the implicit biases of people.

Of course I'm speculating but my speculation comes about using the litmus test of the "black on black crime" rhetoric from the right-wing narrative. For example people often cite black on black crime (as if they care) as a perspective and tactic to deflect from other social issues African-Americans bring up. You see, people outside the in group don't really care about people killing each other in the urban community, rather some use stereotypes as opposed to critically thinking about confounding factors that contribute to crime. Biases and stereotypes are easier to allocate behaviors of other people because these are easy accessible to the mind (considering most people aren't sociologist nobody takes time to break down factors). In short people don't care on the same frequency of different tragedies because all tragedies does not illicit the same emotional feelings. I'm sure if I plugged you up to an fMRI and showed you tragedies in Compton verses tragedies in the Ukraine I'm sure your brain would show me different results.

If by confounding factors, you are referring in general to underlying factors, I think we agree. Absolutely, news-worthiness corresponds to implicit bias. Media puts out what sells, what sells caters to implicit bias. I have no objections with anyone asserting that. It is the contrast between these two incidences that I am questioning the racial bias.

Why do we hear mass media coverage of white people killing black people or vice versa compared black people killing black people killings? Because racism sells.

Why do we see more media coverage of police shooting unarmed black people vs unarmed white people? One sells more than the other.

I wonder what my fMRI results would show given your scenario. I agree that statistically we can look at groups and see the effect of various implicit biases. It is this specific instance that I am questioning. Now I am not sure which tragedy is trending more, but I am certain there are plenty of tragedies that are not receiving any attention. I agree that this disparity in discussion relates to implicit bias, but I am not sure that I see the connection to racial bias in these two national stories of hate crimes.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If by confounding factors, you are referring in general to underlying factors, I think we agree. Absolutely, news-worthiness corresponds to implicit bias. Media puts out what sells, what sells caters to implicit bias. I have no objections with anyone asserting that. It is the contrast between these two incidences that I am questioning the racial bias.

Why do we hear mass media coverage of white people killing black people or vice versa compared black people killing black people killings? Because racism sells.

Why do we see more media coverage of police shooting unarmed black people vs unarmed white people? One sells more than the other.

I wonder what my fMRI results would show given your scenario. I agree that statistically we can look at groups and see the effect of various implicit biases. It is this specific instance that I am questioning. Now I am not sure which tragedy is trending more, but I am certain there are plenty of tragedies that are not receiving any attention. I agree that this disparity in discussion relates to implicit bias, but I am not sure that I see the connection to racial bias in these two national stories of hate crimes.

It is like what I said outside the in-group people don't care. Again this is speculation unless I do an fMRI research project looking at the brains of people I will not concretely know. I think society is often driven by media portrayals and its just my bet that some emotions (given the lax presentation of the shooting at Kroger) just don't illicit the same reaction. I mean think about it what kept this man from murdering the 70 something people inside the church was that the doors were locked and services was over. When countries give a moment of silence or light up specific buildings in recognition for the recent tragedy here in the states, they're not doing it for the two people killed, they're doing it for the 11 people.

 

[Curious George]

It is like what I said outside the in-group people don't care. Again this is speculation unless I do an fMRI research project looking at the brains of people I will not concretely know. I think society is often driven by media portrayals and its just my bet that some emotions (given the lax presentation of the shooting at Kroger) just don't illicit the same reaction. I mean think about it what kept this man from murdering the 70 something people inside the church was that the doors were locked and services was over. When countries give a moment of silence or light up specific buildings in recognition for the recent tragedy here in the states, they're not doing it for the two people killed, they're doing it for the 11 people.

I cannot speak to moments of silence or ceremonial acknowledgements. I do wonder what underlying factpes play a role in what is trending vs. what is not. While i think that race does play a role in the larger picture, I also think the "people care less because they are black" is becoming, if not already, another stereotype.

 

[Watchmen]

No. It was to bring out a point using optics to demonstrate a social hypocrisy. It is to stage my view point on why I would like theoretically an honest debate concerning the issue of 45 using those videos as segways.

So you say.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So you say.

Yup

 

[sealchan]

I suspect in the news its winner take all or a lot and maybe diversity of topics plays a competitive role for space. And viewer feedback.

I've often wished for news that took a more magazine approach with contextual content. This could put the "winning" headline story in a broader context. But I suspect that much airtime or page space is too much.

So if a bad shooting occurs then maybe that shooting in broader context historically. Sometimes you get that reading through an article but usually not.

I think a lot of reporters probably focus on the big event and dont construct much context.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can we have an honest debate regarding the most divisive president in our nation’s time?

Is this a debate about who is the most divisive president, a debate about Trump, or a debate under the presumption that Trump is the most divisive president ever?

United States government oversaw the influx of crack cocaine in the urban community.

Oh boy.

This is the second African-American church targeted but more importantly how can manynof you who hate Hilary that much, can reconcile the embolden racist attitudes that exist in this country?

The racists, and their anger, would exist with or without Trump. Hillary would not have abated it, dispersed it, or wounded it. You also dismiss the real possibility that they would be even angrier had Trump lost, after all he won, he's been largely successful, and they still act this way.

Second, it isn't as if the people who do this are going in thinking they'll be applauded by society at large, much less the President.

How many liberal and conservatives will allow this to go on assuming we live in a divisive society because of Obama yet these actions were the direct result of people who voted for Trump?

These aren't the only signs of divisiveness. I would also argue that these eruptions, much like the ones that more closely followed Trump's election, could not have been driven by just a year or two of a President's term. These insanities were festering well before Trump announced he was going to run for office, and Trump never could have won in a more unified country and environment.

When someone lances a boil, you don't blame the knife for the mess.

It isn't all on Obama, certainly the divide had been worsening gradually for decades before, but he was the leader of the left for 8 years while the greatest divide in America since the civil war grew into being. He was the national figurehead while the left accelerated their progressive positions so that in a single generation it became unrecognizable. The left of today calls people irredeemably evil for positions that were held by the Democratic president 20 years ago.

Coinciding this shift was congressional brinksmanship and one-upping on who could be most intransigent; McConnell and Obama were both to blame for that. Democrats claimed a national mandate to do whatever they wanted in 2008 and the more liberal element browbeat the moderate Dems into nonexistence, irradiated what was intended to be the more conciliatory and consensus building Senate processes in 2013, and governed by "pen and phone" when Obama didn't get his way electorally. If you want to counter with the Republican violations of norms, I'll likely agree with every point you offer.

The social and political divides fed upon each other to bring us to where we are today.

Funny how Christianity is attacked when there is a terrorist attack yet the same cannot be said when these churches are targeted.

Do you believe that Christianity was attacked? Or is it that black people were attacked? If it is the latter, why would it be funny that other people see the same reality that you do. If it is the former, could you offer an explanation as to why you believe that over the idea that they were targeted for their skin color/ethnicity?

 

[74x12]

By voting you empower the winning side. You admit that they have a right to rule because you voted. If you want to protest against the whole entire system you can't vote.