Another PC reported shooting

[Valuist]

I saw in one of the comments that on Milwaukee TV, they are reporting the suspect as "ethnic". WTF is that? Everyone has ethnicity. Its just a PC way of saying the shooter wasn't white.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mall-shooting-wisconsin-brookfield-180854621.html

[Dahoss9698]

Wouldn't you have been better off linking the "PC reporting" than what you did?

I have no idea if the station did that (and apparently neither do you), but the comments in a yahoo article are usually known for accuracy. :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

If it really matters one way or the other:

...1:41 p.m.
Authorities have retracted an earlier statement, saying that the suspected shooter is not African-American, but is "ethnic with dark skin."

The suspected shooter is also more than 200 lbs, but may not be as heavy-set as authorities said earlier...

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/175145691.html

[FantasticDan]

Just so I'm clear.. the angle you find most notable in this tragedy (which I'm assuming, since you made it the thread title) is that you read an anonymous comment from someone who claimed that a TV station reported the assailant somewhere along the story as "ethnic".

Wow. :ThmbUp:

Wait a sec.. just realized I was on PA OT, so I withdraw my Wow in favor of a..

http://pdxretro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gomer-pyle-surprise_thumb.jpg

[Valuist]

Wouldn't you have been better off linking the "PC reporting" than what you did?

I have no idea if the station did that (and apparently neither do you), but the comments in a yahoo article are usually known for accuracy. :lol:

Yahoo comments are usually more accurate than their stories.

[JustRalph]

On twitter they are blaming the Governor for not "doing more" to protect the people of Wisconsin

It was a domestic. Guy went after his estranged wife

Before it's over Paul Ryan will be frog marched......

[Dahoss9698]

Yahoo comments are usually more accurate than their stories.
You avoided my question.

Why not just link to what you were talking about? I mean, if true there has to be a link right?

And even if true, isn't the story the shooting? Who cares what one station might have reported?

I read an interesting post today about how "this joint is good about scrutinizing sources & HEAVY biases." So your source right now is a comment under a yahoo article.

Could very well be true, but even the most biased person might agree that it's a questionable source.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Could very well be true, but even the most biased person might agree that it's a questionable source.

The local rag that I linked to reported it as such, but they are reporting it is having come from authorities. So yeah, it appears as though it was reported that way locally, but no, this wasn't the media selectively reporting the race as they saw fit. By the accounts I've read, their use of "ethnic" came straight from the po-po. In a related story, four or five people are dead again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wait a sec.. just realized I was on PA OT, so I withdraw my Wow in favor of a..I don't understand the criticism of PA OT as a whole. Are you saying a substantial portion of the country doesn't hold similar views as to the ones expressed in PA OT?

After all, you expect Romney to get at least well over 40% of the vote, do you not? Does that not represent a substantial portion of the population?

[Dahoss9698]

The local rag that I linked to reported it as such, but they are reporting it is having come from authorities. So yeah, it appears as though it was reported that way locally, but no, this wasn't the media selectively reporting the race as they saw fit. By the accounts I've read, their use of "ethnic" came straight from the po-po. In a related story, four or five people are dead again.
The dead people are apparently irrelevant.

How it was reported is what matters. Yay!

[PaceAdvantage]

The dead people are apparently irrelevant.

How it was reported is what matters. Yay!It was either you or someone else who came at me with this kind of thinking when I created a similar thread a couple of months ago. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.

Why the criticism because someone chooses to explore a certain angle related to a story?

I think it's pretty well understood that none of us are happy this shooting took place and people are dead. And it's also pretty well understood that these people are tragically dead, and there isn't much to debate about that. So, unless one of us is personally connected to this tragedy (and I pray none of us here are), why should one be criticized for wanting to discuss how this tragedy is being reported?

[Dahoss9698]

It was either you or someone else who came at me with this kind of thinking when I created a similar thread a couple of months ago. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.

Why the criticism because someone chooses to explore a certain angle related to a story?

I think it's pretty well understood that none of us are happy this shooting took place and people are dead. And it's also pretty well understood that these people are tragically dead, and there isn't much to debate about that. So, unless one of us is personally connected to this tragedy (and I pray none of us here are), why should one be criticized for wanting to discuss how this tragedy is being reported?

Race baiting might be good for business, but I don't see how it promotes intelligent discussion.

This ignores of course that the original "source" for this thread is a comment under an article on yahoo.

I'm genuinely curious what kind of a discussion you are looking for here. I mean, we can all agree that the media for the most part is a joke.

It'd be like starting a new thread everytime Romney flip flops on an issue. Redundant, no?

[bigmack]

This is how it was actually reported:

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n537/themackster1/Gunman3womendead4othershurtinshootingnearBrookfiel dSquare-620WTMJ-MilwaukeesSourceforLocalNewsandWeather.png
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/175145691.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Race baiting might be good for business, but I don't see how it promotes intelligent discussion.

This ignores of course that the original "source" for this thread is a comment under an article on yahoo.

I'm genuinely curious what kind of a discussion you are looking for here. I mean, we can all agree that the media for the most part is a joke.

It'd be like starting a new thread everytime Romney flip flops on an issue. Redundant, no?I don't see race baiting as good for business. Then again, I don't really see this thread as race baiting. If I did, I might have had the inclination to remove it at first.

And no, I don't agree that we all agree the media for the most part is a joke. A lot of people believe the media to be quite fair when it comes to the reporting of crimes and politicians.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The dead people are apparently irrelevant.

How it was reported is what matters. Yay!

I can understand, to a degree, criticisms of how things are reported. Lately it seems the way a story is reported is in fact as much a story as the story itself. In the case of tragedy like this one, where race or ethnicity or whatever isn't exactly front and center (as opposed to Zimmerman v Martin, for example), it does seem like maybe we needn't be quite so quick to jump all over "media bias" since in this case and others like it, the media isn't necessarily creating it, and frankly, it isn't all that relevant.

I'm part of the pissed off honky male cracka gringo sect that has grown tired of being labeled, or having others in my category labeled, as racists if we so much as dare to speak or express any opinion or feeling about any subject that involves any person of any color or has hyphens in their official title to differentiate themselves from being generic americans. It (the label "racist") has become, to borrow another completely meaningless phrase, "epidemic" in this country to head straight in that direction - a topic that has been beaten to death here and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I get the sense at times, that those in my sect of honky white cracka men gringo victims are beginning to go just a wee bit overboard with our own sensitivities on the subject and are getting almost, well nearly almost, as bad as those that we rightfully, proudly, and divinely scream against. We're looking for racist anti-racists behind every corner now, a little overly eager to turn everything into an example of "political correctness run amok", much like the counterbalance wants to make us all out to be "political incorrectness run amok".

It's okay to be the same amount of measured in how we display our own dissatisfaction with bullshit race baiters as we expect them to be in not immediately linking every casual happenstance and utterance to race.

[Dahoss9698]

I can understand, to a degree, criticisms of how things are reported. Lately it seems the way a story is reported is in fact as much a story as the story itself. In the case of tragedy like this one, where race or ethnicity or whatever isn't exactly front and center (as opposed to Zimmerman v Martin, for example), it does seem like maybe we needn't be quite so quick to jump all over "media bias" since in this case and others like it, the media isn't necessarily creating it, and frankly, it isn't all that relevant.

I'm part of the pissed off honky male cracka gringo sect that has grown tired of being labeled, or having others in my category labeled, as racists if we so much as dare to speak or express any opinion or feeling about any subject that involves any person of any color or has hyphens in their official title to differentiate themselves from being generic americans. It (the label "racist") has become, to borrow another completely meaningless phrase, "epidemic" in this country to head straight in that direction - a topic that has been beaten to death here and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I get the sense at times, that those in my sect of honky white cracka men gringo victims are beginning to go just a wee bit overboard with our own sensitivities on the subject and are getting almost, well nearly almost, as bad as those that we rightfully, proudly, and divinely scream against. We're looking for racist anti-racists behind every corner now, a little overly eager to turn everything into an example of "political correctness run amok", much like the counterbalance wants to make us all out to be "political incorrectness run amok".

It's okay to be the same amount of measured in how we display our own dissatisfaction with bullshit race baiters as we expect them to be in not immediately linking every casual happenstance and utterance to race.

Let's just talk about this example. Of what purpose does it serve to discuss race at all?

[Dahoss9698]

I don't see race baiting as good for business. Then again, I don't really see this thread as race baiting. If I did, I might have had the inclination to remove it at first.

And no, I don't agree that we all agree the media for the most part is a joke. A lot of people believe the media to be quite fair when it comes to the reporting of crimes and politicians.
I don't think many feel as though the media is fair. Certainly not here.

But I'm curious. In this instance, what is the purpose of mentioning race at all?

[boxcar]

The dead people are apparently irrelevant.

How it was reported is what matters. Yay!

Try to stay on topic, Horsey. I know it's tough for you, but give it the ol' college try. The topic isn't the shooting, per se! That's why the "dead people are apparently irrelevant". The topic is...(drum roll, please), how the shooting was reported. If you're so interested in [the] dead people, go start your own thread. I think it would be fun to watch you reply to your own posts. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Dispatch as reported by reporters: Be on the lookout for a man.
Fuzz: Anything else?
Dispatch as reported by reporters:Blue shirt, yellow slacks.
Fuzz: Is he Hispanic or what?

FantasyLand Dispatch: NEVERMIND about ethnicity! We're all just PEOPLE.

:lol:

[boxcar]

I don't think many feel as though the media is fair. Certainly not here.

But I'm curious. In this instance, what is the purpose of mentioning race at all?

To keep the reporting fair and balanced? (What a novel idea, eh?) If a white guy did the shooting of an "ethnic" person, chances are many that that the race of the shooter would have been reported.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Let's just talk about this example. Of what purpose does it serve to discuss race at all?

I think I covered my opinion here. In this case it really serves no purpose at all except to make the righteous amongst us looking to expose race-baiting media bias look like the same sort that we fight the good fight against. There's nothing to see here. The media reported what the authorities released. The event itself doesn't appear to have any correlation to race and hasn't been reported as such. Since I watched, via written news at Yahoo specifically from the start, I can say unequivocally that once the man had been described, he had been described as a 200+ pound black man with a gray shirt and black backpack in a dark mazda. That's from memory, so don't bust my balls if I got the shirt color off by a shade, but the point is, he was identified as being black. Pretty straightforward shit, as it should be. Only later was it "reported" that he was being identified as "ethnic, with dark skin" and not "African-american", information from authorities, so I'm assuming that witness reports were probably wrong in this case and were amended when his identity was learned and turns out, he probably isn't black. IF he is black and they changed their tune, then the beef is with the overly sensitive police, but that seems like a bit of a stretch given the whole story.

[bigmack]

To keep the reporting fair and balanced? (What a novel idea, eh?) If a white guy did the shooting of an "ethnic" person, chances are many that that the race of the shooter would have been reported.

Hey, wait a minute. Ain't you one of those where that goof said you'd feel a whole lot different about the Travoon Martin/Gerogie caper if Travoon was yellow er somethin'. No wait, if Georgie was white. I fergets.

The ENTIRE narrative of the press, FLAMING the issue beyond belief, was that Georgie was white. I don't remember goofy here sayin' anything about that.

Now the point is - Who cares about race? :lol:

[Dahoss9698]

I think I covered my opinion here. In this case it really serves no purpose at all except to make the righteous amongst us looking to expose race-baiting media bias look like the same sort that we fight the good fight against.
As always I appreciate your honesty.

I'd tell you to help Boxhair out, but I think we can all agree she's a lost cause. I have hope for your boy Bigmack though. Deep down inside I feel like he wants to get over his various (and vast) prejudices and you might be the kind of friend he needs.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...he wants to get over his various (and vast) prejudices ...

Ahhh come on... he'd never get nearly as much ass as he claims if he had any real deep seeded resentment to so many people because of who or what they are or believe.

[bigmack]

IF he is black and they changed their tune, then the beef is with the overly sensitive police, but that seems like a bit of a stretch given the whole story.
What in the woild is you talkin' about?

It WAS a case of the coppers dialing back the ASSUMED 'blackman' description. He is. Everything's fine in Mayberry.

Some threads are silly.

http://cnnnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121021080008-wisconsin-shooting-mug-body-story-top13.jpg

[Dahoss9698]

Ahhh come on... he'd never get nearly as much ass as he claims if he had any real deep seeded resentment to so many people because of who or what they are or believe.

You said it...not me.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What in the woild is you talkin' about?

It WAS a case of the coppers dialing back the ASSUMED 'blackman' description. He is. Everything's fine in Mayberry.

Some threads are silly.

http://cnnnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121021080008-wisconsin-shooting-mug-body-story-top13.jpg

Maybe he is "african-american" or whatever and you are exactly right. But the photo doesn't seal the deal for me. He could be "haitian-labanese-american", much like GZ went from being "white" to "white-hispanic" when whites blew their top when they found out he didn't look too white. I say black and mean people that don't look caucasian, but this guy may have filled out "eskimo" on some form and describes himself as such. Who the hell knows for sure? You can't be going around calling "white-hispanics" "whites", so if he isn't precisely "black" or more delicately, "African American", and may have an extra hyphen or ethnicity thrown in there.... #@$^@&#$@^, I don't know anymore!!! This is what happens when everyone has a GD title to differentiate themselves from everyone else by skin color or heritage and then scream at everyone else for noticing the differences in people!!!

[johnhannibalsmith]

You said it...not me.

Somehow I knew when I hit submit you'd take it that way instead of how I intended it... but I couldn't in good conscience report Mack's conquests as "fact" and show bias in reporting. :D

[bigmack]

Maybe he is "african-american" or whatever and you are exactly right.
Well he's not and we just elected the first Black man in herstory.

That, according to JJ & others. You know, "he's not Black enough" comments, et al.

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/celebrities/21838-barack-obama/1250529817_barack_obama_290x402.jpg

So the score is BO is black and your vote is that man is NOT black. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...vote is that man is NOT black. :ThmbUp:

My vote is that, by my standards of observation of a photo, he is black. But nobody is going to throw a wangdangdoodle all night long in my direction if it turns out that based upon his identity, which the police now know precisely, he turns out to be something vastly more specific. Come on, he was labeled as black when he was considered "at large" (which made me laugh when he was described as 270 pounds originally). They found him, dead. They identified him positively. Now, he's being called "ethnic"... you don't think there's a chance that this guy, like Zimmerman, is a combo-enthicity or some such thing and they are mitigating backlash by "lumping him in" with a race like they originally did with Zimmerman before they had to add a hyphen when people (like many here) bugged out?

[PaceAdvantage]

Are we to take away from this whole dealio that black people are offended at being described as black? I'm not offended if someone describes me as white. And I can't recall knowing any black people who were offended at being described as black.

I would think they'd be more offended at being described as "ethnic," but then again, I'm white...so my thoughts on this don't amount to much.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Are we to take away from this whole dealio that black people are offended at being described as black?...

Maybe this will help clarify a bit (yeah right). Maybe he's Jamaican (totally hypothetical). I don't know if Jamaicans get mad about being called black or if blacks get mad if Jamaicans get called black. Probably, knowing people today, but I'm not into the whole who belongs to which color and when its okay to consider anyone not specifically "african american" (by their definition) as black. I know many, many mexicans. Whenever someone calls them "hispanic", most will chime and declare that they are "mexican". Not to be confused with Puerto Ricans or El Salvadorians. For better or for worse, for improved race relations or even more strained relations, "black" seems to be reserved for "african americans" only and even they seem to be getting more and more offended by the generic "black" to get to your question. Likewise, as in the case of Zimmerman, I don't get offended by being called white either, but then when someone else is labeled white who may not be 100% caucasian in an inflammatory way, well... and no, I'm not saying that his being labeled black is itself inflammatory or was intended to be, but criminy, we've all gotten so sensitive about everything and it has become such an easy way to pander and make us feel so proud of our "acceptance of others" if we can point out someone else's perceived shortcomings in any way in that realm... I'm sure there will come a day when saying "latino" or "hispanic" is bad news too and we will need to locate and acknowledge their descendent's place of birth or risk being racists.

This is just exactly what's wrong with running around screaming "racist" at every opportunity. It's a meaningless word, just an insult now. Everyone's heritage needs to be respected to such ridiculous extremes that blacks get mad if someone is called black and whites get mad if someone is described as white or if someone that looks black isn't described as black because a guy that looks white gets described as white... it's all so f@#$^#@ ridiculous and has almost NOTHING to do with racism, except to guarantee that we all remain on eggshells in fear of being labeled with a totally meaningless term of convenience.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe this will help clarify a bit (yeah right). Maybe he's Jamaican (totally hypothetical). I don't know if Jamaicans get mad about being called black or if blacks get mad if Jamaicans get called black. Probably, knowing people today, but I'm not into the whole who belongs to which color and when its okay to consider anyone not specifically "african american" (by their definition) as black. I know many, many mexicans. Whenever someone calls them "hispanic", most will chime and declare that they are "mexican". Not to be confused with Puerto Ricans or El Salvadorians. For better or for worse, for improved race relations or even more strained relations, "black" seems to be reserved for "african americans" only and even they seem to be getting more and more offended by the generic "black" to get to your question. Likewise, as in the case of Zimmerman, I don't get offended by being called white either, but then when someone else is labeled white who may not be 100% caucasian in an inflammatory way, well... and no, I'm not saying that his being labeled black is itself inflammatory or was intended to be, but criminy, we've all gotten so sensitive about everything and it has become such an easy way to pander and make us feel so proud of our "acceptance of others" if we can point out someone else's perceived shortcomings in any way in that realm... I'm sure there will come a day when saying "latino" or "hispanic" is bad news too and we will need to locate and acknowledge their descendent's place of birth or risk being racists.

This is just exactly what's wrong with running around screaming "racist" at every opportunity. It's a meaningless word, just an insult now. Everyone's heritage needs to be respected to such ridiculous extremes that blacks get mad if someone is called black and whites get mad if someone is described as white or if someone that looks black isn't described as black because a guy that looks white gets described as white... it's all so f@#$^#@ ridiculous and has almost NOTHING to do with racism, except to guarantee that we all remain on eggshells in fear of being labeled with a totally meaningless term of convenience.I'll go with your answer and call it a day...

[JustRalph]

Years ago on Columbus Ohio Police Radio


Officer at Robbery scene:" Dispatch, it's a male usual in a grey hoodie, he looks just like the other ten guys who robbed somebody this last couple of days"

Dispatch: ok, male usual in grey hoodie, all cars copy?


He got 30 days off.........and he " was" a Sgt.