You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Typo [S] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The Ferguson incident started out with the locals being outraged and protesting. The police response was heavy handed which caused social media to exploded and other countries covered it. US media didn't touch the story until articles were posted in other countries. Australia was the first, if I remember correctly.

There would be outrage around this story if the people who lived in his town got together to protest. They could also start a social media campaign. Minimal exposure is caused by the community not taking action. No one would have heard of Mike Brown if the residents didn't do something after the incident occurred.

tl;dr: this story won't be big until the community or the family does something.


[–] ShampocalypseWOW 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Any story that fits the media's race-baiting tactics will be homed in on and exploited for all it's worth. Whether or not they're doing it to fan the flames, or they're just that fucking lazy that they have to go for stories that fall into their laps like that is irrelevant, of course. The point is that this kid doesn't fit that narrative, so his life effectively does not matter enough to speak about. Cop abuse is a huge issue, regardless of color, but there is a very clear bias towards highlighting cop abuse when the cop is white and victim is black. When the cop is also black, you don't really hear too much about it. When the victim is white or latino, you similarly don't hear too much about it. Your argument that the community must be outraged in order for it to be a story is just playing right into what the media is doing. It's admission that there is less cause for outrage because he was white. If people started getting up in arms as people did over previous cases where the victim was black, what do you think would happen? They'd be targeted by Social Justice Warriors who would tell them they're not allowed to be as outraged as they were about a black person because white privilege and systematic injustice perpetrated by the victim's race and gender. They would be outraged that people were outraged at something that doesn't advance their narrative. That is exactly what would happen.


[–] Typo [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I'm not saying there is less outrage because he is white. I never mentioned white community. When I said community, I meant his town. His town is outraged, I know someone who lives there. But they aren't holding meetings yet. It is all over the local news.

If people were out there protesting for him or they organized nationwide protests and blocked traffic or something; the media wouldn't be able to ignore it. My argument is sound because that is what they did for the Ferguson incident. I watched it from the beginning. No one was reporting on it for the first few days. Cases after that were picked up to continue the money coming in after the Ferguson incident. A town in Ohio didn't make the national news when the police killed a black guy in a walmart. No one protested it. The black guy who was shot in NYC around the time of Eric Garner protests also didn't have anyone protesting his death. I'm sure there are others.

SJW were on board with the Kelly Thomas (white male) incident so I don't know why you think that a victims race will make them condemn any attempts to protest. There have been a lot of protests in CA, NY and FL for Latino victims and SJW have participated. Protests got pretty bad in Denver a few days ago after a Native American was killed by police. SJW participated in that.

If you want to break the media bias, then get out there and protest. You are accepting it by not even attempting.