Buckeyes Riot Burn Destroy Property, Not A Thug In Sight
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
No seriously, do you have the Columbus Dispatch link that says there were car fires and an overturned vehicle with this last Ohio State riot ?
You said you read it from the Columbus Dispatch. You get on other people for their accuracy,reading skills, and facts. Some people would like to know for sure about the car fires and the overturned vehicle. Was it something you actually read? Was it something you think you read? Was it something you pulled out of you rump orifice, and decided to throw into the this thread? Inquiring minds would like to know.
OK, I may be misinterpreting what you said with no knowledge of your mindset, but what you wrote was clear as a bell. I didn't insert those words without any basis in fact. Your statement was one of disingenuous concession, because it was highly qualified in conceding that "maybe" there were a "few" protesters, with protesters in quotes, to mean something other than mere protesters, and then quickly moved right to the "but," which more or less dismisses everything said to that point, and just in case, drove it home with an "especially," then to top it off that the second part of your sentence (after the but) was far more important and plausible than the first part, you gave a link to support it. That's hardly me recklessly asserting something with no basis in fact.
Really? That's common knowledge? What about all the Ferguson protesters who were present that publicly stated they didn't want or condone violence? Are we to dismiss those?
What about the intent to cause destruction of couches and dumpsters? By your own argument, every single reveler out there had the same intent. Oh, wait, I forgot, intent only matters if the destruction includes buildings and lootings.
Not really. I listed three distinct difference and you only chose to highlight one of them, as if the other two don't exist.
I absolutely did not say in Post #28 that these were identical happenings. Don't go all Muttly on me now. I said they were both riots regardless of who does it, and said in the context of disparity of the tenor and tone of the language and phrasing used by the press in reporting them, and in that same post noted that there are varying degrees of rioting. And in Post #28 I wasn't even referencing OSU and Ferguson specifically, but white versus black riots in general.
No, it's not, and I never said it was. It's not about reporting the difference in the riots, it's about the differences in the reporting. It's about choices of language and phrasing, the placement of certain details within the article itself to give or diminish importance, it's the way the articles are crafted and presented, the tenor and tone of the reporting.
Wrong again. I questioned in post #11 whether or not there had been damages reported at OSU, and apparently there had been none at that point. I also mentioned in post #24 that in either case the crowds should have dispersed when ordered to do so by the police, and again mentioned no reports of property damage. Evaluating the differences in damages, injuries and number of arrests is not bias - it's simply stating the obvious difference in scale between the two riots, and that one was far more serious than the other.[/quote]My response wasn't about anything in post #11 or #24 or anything else other than your self-contained first paragraph in post #49. the one that I was directly responding about. And in Post #49, you didn't evaluate the differences, because you were too focused on rebuking the thought of not believing our lying eyes.
I'm not the one even tying to compare the apples and oranges of the damage particulars, not am I talking about punishments. Those are your department. I'm comparing the reporting of the events regarding when white people riot versus when black people riot. I do find it extraordinarily interesting that you just compared OSU rioters to shoplifters, and Ferguson rioters to bank robbers. If you want to do an honest apples to apples comparison, compare OSU bank robbers to Ferguson bank robbers (or OSU shoplifters to Ferguson shoplifters) and then talk about the different amounts they stole. Same crime for both, just different degrees of it, same with rioting.
No, seriously, it's not coming. I've told you that twice, and I told you why. Now I'm telling you for a third time.
I've also handed to you on a virtual silver platter the golden nugget with which you can (I fully expect) to use with all your blind incomprehension against me, stating very clearly that the video in which I saw the cars, and the companion article that was written about them, have been dramatically edited in time and length to reflect the focus of the police use of tear gas angle of the riots, and told you that if you had a serious enough problem with them doing that you'd have to contact the reporter directly.
And another post from someone who chooses not to participate in the thread, and instead choosing to throw peanut shells from the peanut gallery. If you have an opinion on how the press reports riots depending on the color of the participants, or if there is or is not any racial bias in news reporting, I'm sure the entire would would love to know it. I know I would.Another thread of "insult tennis". Yawn...
Yep, you pulled it out of your rump orifice.
Last edited:
Turtle: convincing some people that they are routinely manipulated by the "news" they read is just impossible - they have too much invested in their intelligent self image to admit to being wrong. But, like those who use words they don't actually know the meaning of, [because they've heard them, and believe they do], they will prove your point for you - except they won't acknowledge it, because they still don't believe it. And today's culture says their beliefs are as good as your facts.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
A quick Google search actually turned up a lot of news articles that called them rioters and they were written at that time, not after to appease. The descriptions used terms like havoc, pathetic display, riots, riot gear, etc. There were plenty of media outlets that called them what they were and most of this seems to be getting attention based on a couple of news outlets and tweets.
Last edited:
Here's an article that pretty well sums it up.
Camouflage Clad Cops In Riot Gear | Politicus Sports
Camouflage Clad Cops In Riot Gear | Politicus Sports
paullud
Veteran Expediter
That basically says that the cops overreacted in both locations regardless of race. They try to bring up things like looting which was a problem in Ferguson while it wasn't a problem in Columbus. They claim that the representation of these idiots just being revelers was generally true which as I stated before just isn't true.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
lol........
The author is confusing news reports of riots from Ferguson and opinions from some blog and making it seem like it is the same thing. The bias article points out words like 'revelers' and 'students' are used to describe the people in the OSU incident, but downplays the reports using the word RIOT. NUMEROUS reports did in fact call it a RIOT. The word THUG is very rarely used in a news report. The author also omits words like 'demonstrators' and 'protesters' that VERY OFTEN are the descriptions used in news stories about Ferguson and elsewhere. Just like the word revelers was used with the OSU incident. They were celebrating, that is what a reveler is. Some of them then began to riot and then it was called a riot in the news report.
Words like riot and looters are used in news reports because that is what they were doing. They were rioting and looting .
From article--
'Generally, the stories that appeared Tuesday morning about the crowd referred to them as “revelers” and “students. Meanwhile, past articles about demonstrations against police brutality in Ferguson and the rest of the country have regularly described protests as “riots” while mentioning “looting” by “thugs.” So, there’s that particular narrative at work that displays a specific type of racial disparity.'
Last edited:
It also says that all the people who found nothing wrong with the police tactics when protesters were angry about young black males being shot with little or no provocation, might pay attention now that the police are going after college football fans. Riiiight. But there's nothing racist about that, huh?
I have nothing to add to this discussion except this: I really, really hate football.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
They didn't pay attention though. There wasn't some huge outrage over how the police reacted in Columbus so it makes no sense to even bring that up. The author brought it up which just proves how prejudice and biased their views are. If all the people protesting and screaming racist were any other group we would tell them to put on a tinfoil hat. These people are usually nothing more than Truthers with a different cause but no one wants to say it because they don't want to be branded as a racist.
You'll have to define "huge outrage" then. The author brought it up because the outrage was, and still is, pretty significant. The outrage is so significant that the narrative of the reporting quickly changed from the damage done by "revelers" to that of tear gas being used and pepper spray being sprayed on people for not being on the sidewalk. Original stories by actual news organizations were edited, updated and amended to reflect the newly crafted narrative. The Columbus police chief initially was "completely pleased" with how officer reacted, but the mayor is still complaining and now the police chief has launched an internal investigation into the sprayings.
One of the reasons the narrative changed so quickly is that police sprayed a prominent and respected news photographer. The press has demanded an apology from the police and have threatened legal action.
Don't riot and you won't get gassed. It is kinda simple. I remember getting tear gassed twice in my life. Once was in basic training, to teach confidence in your gas mask. The second time was when I was in Japan. We had been downtown Misawa, and while we were gone some "peaceful protesters" tried to storm the base. We had no idea that this "action" was taking place.
As we got closer to the main gate to the air base we caught just a light touch of some of the tear gas they were using to control the crowd. Knowing what that was, we turned around and went back into town for several more hours.
tried to storm the base. We had no idea that this "action" was taking place. As we got closer to the main gate to the air base we caught just a light touch of some of the tear gas they were using to control the crowd. Knowing what that was, we turned around and went back into town for several more hours.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
As in most people don't care and there isn't a huge public outcry. There is some local attention because it is a local story but compare that to the national coverage of police using tear gas in Ferguson after things had gone much further. Ferguson was being reported as a peaceful protest where cops got heavy handed but the destruction there just ended up going on for too long and was too wide spread to just ignore. Also keep in mind that the protests there turned ugly based off of what turned out to be a justifiable shooting. People continue to support that stupidity and get angry first instead of saying let's get to the bottom of this. We need to know what happened and why before people are out screaming about things which does nothing but fuel anger and continue to make things worse.