4 ms·

I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since th

by muglug 6y ago

I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.

julianmarq 6y ago
> I sort of zeroed in on that. You didn't. > if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. This is "zeroing in on that". What you first replied is many things, but it is certainly not this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nullc 6y ago
Fair enough. I think it's unfortunate though that discussions like this will seldom produce a good or convincing example as much as I agree it would be good to have them. The issue as I see is that people with balanced and nuanced views and an appreciation of the complexity of the matter will just not bother participating in the discussion. Instead, we'll hear from people with the most extreme or emotionally driven views and they'll tend to pick unconvincing examples-- even if there are better examples to be had.
jimmygrapes 6y ago
In order to provide examples of "race-baiting propaganda" as I called it, we would have to first agree on what constitutes race-baiting and propaganda. I assume we can agree that propaganda is material designed to sway an opinion, yet labels itself implicitly or explicitly as something other than "opinion". As for race-baiting, my definition is anything that brings race into the conversation when it is materially irrelevant, or when it is introduced solely as a means of depicting one race (or a representative member thereof) in a positive or negative fashion, to the exclusion of further context, nuance, or counter samples. The 1619 Project itself is a prime example. I am on mobile and have difficulty linking, but you can search on NYT's website for the word "racist", filtering out anything other than world/U.S. news, within the last month, and you will see a bevy of articles written to highlight how "good" or "bad" somebody is for even hinting at race being a factor in something (such as a descriptor) - not going to go into the hypocrisy there, but it's hard to miss if you apply the same standards NYT uses to depict someone as "racist" to their own staff. A simple recent example, for the person in a cousin comment asking me to expound, is in the recent news article about Honestie Hodges, a young girl whose handcuffing by police caused "outrage" according to NYT, and who recently died apparently of COVID-19 related causes. In that article you can read through and see several points where race was introduced, not as a relevant point, but as a way to introduce further division between two races in an article where those facts are immaterial. It is through their omissions and irrelevant insertions, through their implications and labels, that NYT is race-baiting; the propaganda part comes from using the reach of the organization to spread such content as pure unbiased fact, when in truth it is manipulative.
- muglug 6y ago
  I’m white, and I read those same articles (I read pretty much everything in the 1619 project and the recent story on that poor girl’s death). I did not see any race-baiting in either. I did not see the introduction of “further division between two races”. I saw articles that covered some uncomfortable facts. If you’d rather ignore that reality you’re free to not read the Times. Edit: just looked at your comment history. I'm sorry your experiences with nonwhite people caused you such animus.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by muglug 6y ago

julianmarq 6y ago

> I sort of zeroed in on that. You didn't. > if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. This is "zeroing in on that". What you first replied is many things, but it is certainly not this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nullc 6y ago

Fair enough. I think it's unfortunate though that discussions like this will seldom produce a good or convincing example as much as I agree it would be good to have them. The issue as I see is that people with balanced and nuanced views and an appreciation of the complexity of the matter will just not bother participating in the discussion. Instead, we'll hear from people with the most extreme or emotionally driven views and they'll tend to pick unconvincing examples-- even if there are better examples to be had.

jimmygrapes 6y ago

In order to provide examples of "race-baiting propaganda" as I called it, we would have to first agree on what constitutes race-baiting and propaganda. I assume we can agree that propaganda is material designed to sway an opinion, yet labels itself implicitly or explicitly as something other than "opinion". As for race-baiting, my definition is anything that brings race into the conversation when it is materially irrelevant, or when it is introduced solely as a means of depicting one race (or a representative member thereof) in a positive or negative fashion, to the exclusion of further context, nuance, or counter samples. The 1619 Project itself is a prime example. I am on mobile and have difficulty linking, but you can search on NYT's website for the word "racist", filtering out anything other than world/U.S. news, within the last month, and you will see a bevy of articles written to highlight how "good" or "bad" somebody is for even hinting at race being a factor in something (such as a descriptor) - not going to go into the hypocrisy there, but it's hard to miss if you apply the same standards NYT uses to depict someone as "racist" to their own staff. A simple recent example, for the person in a cousin comment asking me to expound, is in the recent news article about Honestie Hodges, a young girl whose handcuffing by police caused "outrage" according to NYT, and who recently died apparently of COVID-19 related causes. In that article you can read through and see several points where race was introduced, not as a relevant point, but as a way to introduce further division between two races in an article where those facts are immaterial. It is through their omissions and irrelevant insertions, through their implications and labels, that NYT is race-baiting; the propaganda part comes from using the reach of the organization to spread such content as pure unbiased fact, when in truth it is manipulative.

muglug 6y ago
I’m white, and I read those same articles (I read pretty much everything in the 1619 project and the recent story on that poor girl’s death). I did not see any race-baiting in either. I did not see the introduction of “further division between two races”. I saw articles that covered some uncomfortable facts. If you’d rather ignore that reality you’re free to not read the Times. Edit: just looked at your comment history. I'm sorry your experiences with nonwhite people caused you such animus.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]