I did. Struggling, and not succeeding, to discover what it is the school did that qualifies as racist, as opposed to short sighted, bureaucratic, bloody-minded, or just doing the nearly impossible of drawing lines between twixt and hither.
I think Harry's alleging that some of the comments are racist, not necessarily the contents of the actual post.
In the old days I would've taken the time to list hundreds of racist and (especially) antisemitic tweets and posts by progressive luminaries just to show it's not only Texans who aren't perfect, but it's all about the Benjamins baby and I gotta go make me some money.
Virtually all of the comments are racist and all pick up on an obvious theme. But, sure, if you can imagine the school offering to color a honky kid's head with a pink marker, have at it.
Wake me up the next time a leftist shoots up a Wal-Mart.
Not the comments by th reliably civilized Juanita Jean readers, Skipper, the comments from the locals in Pearland that JJ liked to:
Here.
I hope you have had time to digest your breakfast; it's revolting.
No, Dayton shooter does not count since AFAIK no motive has been discovered. Ditto Gilroy. Not all mass shootings are fascist, only about 90%, counting the ones interrupted.
Google is unaware of any conclusions about the Dayton shooter. I willassime you are getting your information from SMOTI who specializes in false reports that mass shooters are Democrats
Um...if the LAT and/or the NYT are "left wing," why do actual leftwingers despise them both so much? I realize this would require actual familiarity with the "left wing," as opposed to centrists who, from your perspective, might appear to be "left wing," but I figured I'd at least ask.
Because they are fundamentally conservative publications, with conservative ownership and conservative editors. The occasional liberal (rarely ever leftist) editorial writer aside, they are at best center-left, and often bend over backwards to avoid being perceived even that far left.
If you want to know specifics, I would suggest actually reading a few leftists. On the far-far-far-left Chomsky will tell you in no small detail what he thinks of the Times, after all, but the perception is fairly consistent along the left in general. If your perception of the political spectrum is situated somewhere to the right of Torquemada, you will have a skewed idea of ideological leanings.
The NYT is class, race, and gender focused, just like good collectivists are supposed to be. It doesn’t give a fig about the Constitution. Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer still hangs in the building.
Even its straight reporting, which was at one time reasonably good, has gone full progressive, all the time. I subscribed for a good dozen years until about four months ago. Its horrible coverage of the Russia collusion hoax finally became more than I could stomach.
As much as I disagree with the left, I would never make the insult of lumping them with Chomsky.
Harry, the NYT’s treatment of Hillary in the last election cycle could not possibly have been kinder without losing the very last shred of respectability.
Never mind that there is a hell of a lot more to being in the tank for progressives than just the Clintons.
Also, the attention conservatives pay to class, gender, and race isn’t a patch on what grievance mongering progressives do as a matter of their daily ablutions.
Don’t believe me? Compare a month of the NYT vs. the WSJ.
Of course, if you read newspapers, you’d already know this.
i wasn't referring to the coverage of the 2016 election but to the Times's cheerleading for the insane allegations about Mena.
Safire's Pulitzer is still on the wall, too.
The difference between left attention to race, class and gender and right attention is that the left is generally opposed to discrimination while the right justifies it.
Yes, everybody's racist. You're racist, I'm racist, every human is racist.
ReplyDeleteHarry, please explain how what that school administration did, no matter how stupid, or ignorant of policy it might have been, amounts to racism.
ReplyDeleteRead the comments
ReplyDeleteI did. Struggling, and not succeeding, to discover what it is the school did that qualifies as racist, as opposed to short sighted, bureaucratic, bloody-minded, or just doing the nearly impossible of drawing lines between twixt and hither.
ReplyDeleteI think Harry's alleging that some of the comments are racist, not necessarily the contents of the actual post.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days I would've taken the time to list hundreds of racist and (especially) antisemitic tweets and posts by progressive luminaries just to show it's not only Texans who aren't perfect, but it's all about the Benjamins baby and I gotta go make me some money.
Virtually all of the comments are racist and all pick up on an obvious theme. But, sure, if you can imagine the school offering to color a honky kid's head with a pink marker, have at it.
ReplyDeleteWake me up the next time a leftist shoots up a Wal-Mart.
[Harry:] Virtually all of the comments are racist and all pick up on an obvious theme.
ReplyDeleteNot one of those comments is even remotely racist; in fact, near as I can tell, everyone of them slams the school in one way or another.
But, by all means, grab one, quote it, and shows why it is racist.
Otherwise, it appears that, once again, you are making the accusation in bad faith.
Wake me up the next time a leftist shoots up a Wal-Mart.
Dayton shooting doesn't count?
And what ideology did the Wal-Mart shooter adhere to?
Not the comments by th reliably civilized Juanita Jean readers, Skipper, the comments from the locals in Pearland that JJ liked to:
ReplyDeleteHere.
I hope you have had time to digest your breakfast; it's revolting.
No, Dayton shooter does not count since AFAIK no motive has been discovered. Ditto Gilroy. Not all mass shootings are fascist, only about 90%, counting the ones interrupted.
Fix your link.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are wrong about the Dayton shooter.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-school-staffers-colored-black-teen-s-haircut-sharpie-lawsuit-n1043956
ReplyDeleteGoogle is unaware of any conclusions about the Dayton shooter. I willassime you are getting your information from SMOTI who specializes in false reports that mass shooters are Democrats
Hodgkinson.
ReplyDeleteYour google skills are sucktastic.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-07/what-role-does-ideology-play-in-mass-shootings
Not what the Dayton police or what people who knew him say. As usual, rightwingers allege a left motive when none is known
ReplyDeletePro-tip, Harry. The LAT is as reliably left wing as the NYT.
ReplyDeleteAnother pro-tip, Harry. Other than progressives, no one tars entire groups for the actions of a single lunatic.
Progressives being the same people who are so incontinent with the racist tar brush.
Um...if the LAT and/or the NYT are "left wing," why do actual leftwingers despise them both so much? I realize this would require actual familiarity with the "left wing," as opposed to centrists who, from your perspective, might appear to be "left wing," but I figured I'd at least ask.
DeleteActual progressives despise them so much? Who? For what?
DeleteEnquiring minds want to know.
Because they are fundamentally conservative publications, with conservative ownership and conservative editors. The occasional liberal (rarely ever leftist) editorial writer aside, they are at best center-left, and often bend over backwards to avoid being perceived even that far left.
DeleteIf you want to know specifics, I would suggest actually reading a few leftists. On the far-far-far-left Chomsky will tell you in no small detail what he thinks of the Times, after all, but the perception is fairly consistent along the left in general. If your perception of the political spectrum is situated somewhere to the right of Torquemada, you will have a skewed idea of ideological leanings.
The NYT is class, race, and gender focused, just like good collectivists are supposed to be. It doesn’t give a fig about the Constitution. Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer still hangs in the building.
DeleteEven its straight reporting, which was at one time reasonably good, has gone full progressive, all the time. I subscribed for a good dozen years until about four months ago. Its horrible coverage of the Russia collusion hoax finally became more than I could stomach.
As much as I disagree with the left, I would never make the insult of lumping them with Chomsky.
For just one specific example, the NYT would be perfectly happy with a wealth tax.
DeleteNot a darn thing conservative about that.
Everybody is racist, some more than others. Way way more than others.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the incontinent, here’s Clovis.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the NYT went after the Clintons because they were too far to the right, then?
ReplyDeletePossibly the Times pays a lot of attention to class, race and gender because rightwingers do.
Harry, the NYT’s treatment of Hillary in the last election cycle could not possibly have been kinder without losing the very last shred of respectability.
ReplyDeleteNever mind that there is a hell of a lot more to being in the tank for progressives than just the Clintons.
Also, the attention conservatives pay to class, gender, and race isn’t a patch on what grievance mongering progressives do as a matter of their daily ablutions.
Don’t believe me? Compare a month of the NYT vs. the WSJ.
Of course, if you read newspapers, you’d already know this.
i wasn't referring to the coverage of the 2016 election but to the Times's cheerleading for the insane allegations about Mena.
ReplyDeleteSafire's Pulitzer is still on the wall, too.
The difference between left attention to race, class and gender and right attention is that the left is generally opposed to discrimination while the right justifies it.
“... insane allegations about Mena.”
ReplyDeleteEnlighten us with some links.
“... while the right justifies [discrimination]”.
Specific examples, please. I’d hate to think you are making things up.