Smasharoo wrote:
Slight flaw here Smash. Aren't you assuming that this reporter is part of that group?
No, I'm not.
Yes you are. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to excuse his actions (or join in those condemning the response to his actions) on the basis of his skin color. You've just spent several posts expounding on the idea that it's ok to treat black people differently then whites because they've been the victims of historical racism (and in your opinion, still are). You choose to make those arguments in response to my statements that it's wrong to bash those who removed the reporter purely because of the reporters skin.
You can't claim it's not about him. That's what started the thread.
Quote:
You should probably read the seven posts where I stated I don't think race was involved at all here.
In the decision to boot him from that section of the event? You're right. In the decision to write a story implying that the McCain camp is racist? You're absolutely wrong. It's completely about race. Otherwise, why is the story about a "black reporter" being removed?
Quote:
If it'd make you happier, feel free to read any of my posts where the term "blacks" or "black community" are used as including the following disclaimer: "Excepting those black people born into wealth and privilege or provided opportunities identical to white people"
Yet, you didn't have any problem bringing up those arguments in a thread about a reporter where the only information we have about him is that he's black.
Clearly, you don't really make that distinction Smash. You assume that all black people should be treated differently because of the former groups statistical position. Not just members of that group. Did you determine what the socio-economic status of the reporter was? Funny. I don't recall that at all...
More to the point, would you have applied the same rule if the reporter had been white? I'm going to assume not...