I picked today because I wanted to make it easy for you. It’s a lot harder to dig through their articles and find everything published on some random date last year. The crux of it is this: if 9 out of 10 Breitbart articles (to pull a ratio out of thin air) are not racist, is it fair or accurate to call it “a racist website”? What if that ratio were 99/100 or 999/1000? I don’t think it would be.
I suspect some minuscule fraction of what has been published on their site could be sincerely argued as racist. That’s probably also true of many other news sites. That’s even true of the SDMB (although we probably wouldn’t use the word “published”).
Kimstu, I hope you enjoy your protest on Saturday. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing I can applaud as concerned citizens expressing their views in one of our greatest traditions, even though I may disagree with some of those views.
This seems like a bit of a silly quibble. I can think of some parliamentary systems in countries that most of us would describe as “democratic” where the eventually-selected prime minister hails from some minor party that didn’t get as many people’s votes as others.
Is the only type of election you’d describe as “democratic” one that’s an absolute pure plurality-wins system? No exception for filtering the “will of the people” through a federalist or parliamentary system? Those are all “undemocratic”?
Maybe you have a point. Let’s take a biker skinhead mass-murderer: he didn’t ride motorcycles ALL the time. And sure, maybe he said some racist things, but most of what he said was probably, “Can I have a pack of Marlboros?” or “I’ll have a number 3 combo with a Diet Coke” or other mundane things. And maybe he did kill a few people, but that was only one thing he did.
So does he really deserve to be called a biker skinhead mass-murder?
You’ve convinced me that it is an unfair thing to call ANYONE.
Even one racist article, which wasn’t later rescinded or repudiated, would classify a news organization as “racist” in my opinion. And the opinion of many others, fyi.
I happen to think that coalition governments that bypass parties which win the most votes are also undemocratic, but I am not sure that actually happens in any truly democratic state. But no, I don’t think a parliamentary system is inherently undemocratic. People vote for their MP, and the selection of the chief executive is a function of how many MPs get elected.
I do think a federalist system which weights votes by geography (like ours) is inherently undemocratic, yes. I know that technically people are voting for a slate of electors, but the only purpose of the electoral college is to make the system less democratic.
So if I can find one “racist” thing that CNN ever published and they didn’t rescind or repudiate it, it’s fair to label CNN “a racist website”? That’s absurd in my opinion. And the opinion of many others, fyi.
Yes. Support of unrepentant racism makes an organization racist. Now, if they wrote one racist article years ago, I might consider that they are not racist anymore. But the editor who allowed the racist article to go to print and never refuted it is racist, and an organization with someone like that in charge is racist.
I hold those who enable racists as a lower scum of humanity than racists themselves. Racists, at least actually believe the things the say and think when they seek to harm another person or group of people due to their hate.
People like brietbart know better, but they like the money, so they are happy to give voice to such hate.
Yes, actually.
Tell ya what, find one, and we’ll discuss it.
I actually don’t know what you’ll find, as I haven’t paid attention to CNN since the 80’s, but I doubt you will find the sort of thing you found on brietbart.
I’m going to the Women’s March (and will point out to the purists here that it’s not held on Inauguration Day, but on Saturday). The bolded statement above is my primary reason for going.
Kimstu said:
"Exactly. This is why I think it’s more accurate and informative to describe Bannon as a “white supremacism promoter” rather than as a “white supremacist” per se, and the former is how I always refer to him. "
I generally prefer to identify speech/actions - not people - as racist or whatever. Partly for pragmatic reasons: “That was a racist thing to say!” is less harsh than “You’re a total racist for saying that!” Also for accuracy.
That said, Brannon’s ex-wife has spilled some details about his personal anti-Semitism: Trump Campaign CEO Steve Bannon Accused of Anti-Semitic Remarks by Ex-Wife. Depending on how much credibility you give her accusations, there’s some degree of reason to ascribe anti-Semitism to some of Bannon’s words/actions.
In other words, it’s not just the stuff he published on Breitbart.
Why am I going to my local women’s march 1/21? Besides the reasons others have stated above, it’s to get reenergized. Psyched up. Overcome my personal fear and despair.
It’s been a depressing couple months. I need to snap out of it. Being around a few thousand people who share some of my concerns will help.
TL;DR, in right-wing social media-speak: I’m a special snowflake who can’t get over Trump’s overwhelming victory and needs a “safe space” to protect my fee-fees. Also, I’m totally irrational for expecting him to do the things he said he’d do, which even if he did them wouldn’t be as bad as libtards like me think they would be… (Was that close?)
You also missed: “Trump is a perfectly normal candidate and completely appropriate as a choice for president, and this is all just the same as us being upset about Obama as President, which by the way we had no problem with, you guys just all have faulty memories.”
Let’s talk about just one of these for a moment, because I think it does a fantastic job highlighting how much ignorance drives the Breitbart-is-the-devil narrative:
What’s the problem here? For bonus points, if you could explain how it’s “racist” that’d be helpful.