Why Is There No Outrage About This Police Shooting?

[RLENT]

Stop it. Just stop. You don't know what you're doing.

But that is what makes this so fun ...

That some fact or facts are omitted from anything isn't the litmus test for being a lie by omission. I realize you think "meaningless minutiae" means "really big and important," but it doesn't.

The black reporters / contributors on Fox News are rare, exceedingly rare, they are the exception to the rule. The rule being: Fox News is very, very white. The fact that Fox News has a small handful of black reporters and contributors is not a significant fact, thus not a significant factor of the statement that would qualify as a lie. The back reporters / contributors on Fox News is so insignificant in the context of Fox News that they can be (and often are) referred to as tokens. Santa Clause is, after all, white, you know, according to Fox News.

Now you're talking facts and common sense ...

How in the world do you ever expect to get anywhere with that ?

The article you posted on Giuliani is just loaded with omitted facts. Millions of them. Maybe even an infinite number of them. Does that make the article a lie, because of these omitted facts?

LOL ...

Barf,

You've just been owned ...

 

[RLENT]

Except the picture didn't have one minority in it, which is factually untrue.

A picture lacking minorities cannot be "factually untrue" ... unless there is also a caption which states that the picture is a complete representation of something that is alleged to be depicted ...

And even then, it wouldn't be the picture that was "factually untrue" ... but rather the caption ...

The implication from the photo was that they have ZERO blacks and minorities and are ALL white on Fox News,(not a large representative, as most do) and they are racist.

Well, since you been recently schooled as to the difference between an implication and an inference I don't see any need to go over that again ... unless of course you still have a confusion about it ...

But to address your point, why couldn't it be that the implication is ... that Fox News on a general basis is largely white (and blonde) ... and so it is rather ironic that they would choose to opine on whether racism against "people of color" exists or not ...

That is at least as plausible and potentially as valid as what you offered up.

Good to know you were just looking for a chuckle and not actually looking for accuracy. Doesn't surprise me on the latter though.

Now this is exactly a prime example of what Turtle was talking about earlier: you read something which actually says one thing ... and then divine an entirely different meaning than what is actually there ...

I said absolutely nothing about what I was looking for ... just that most normal (sane) folks - who are not fanatical, partisan extremists - would get a chuckle out of the graphic.

Because, you know: it's true ...

ROTFLMAO ...

 

[Turtle]

Someone who isn't real sharp might not understand when they are, in fact, making the case for something they are actually trying to refute ...

That's what is the most hilarious. The harder he tries to refute most of this stuff, the more he just confirms it. And doesn't even realize it.

One of my more recent favorites is where he was instantly prepared, much like the very predictable conditioned response of Pavlov's Dog, and then plunged right ahead in fine logical fallacy fashion, to discredit the data by citing its highly biased and questionable source, despite not knowing what the source was, and having to fill in that blank with an invented assumption, in spite of being told right up front what the source was.

See this? It's a green Granny Smith apple that I picked right from the apple tree.

Well, you know, uhm, there are lots of reasons why it looks green, but it might not be. It might be yellow but it just has a green tint to it. And even though Fuji apples don't look like that, it's probably a Fuji apple. Yeah, definitely. Definitely a Fuji. 'Course if you got that from a pear tree then it's not an apple. No. No. Definitely not. It's a Fuji pear. A yellow one. I like to drive slow on the driveway. 'Course it's three minutes to Wapner.

 

[skyraider]

But that is what makes this so fun ...


Now you're talking facts and common sense ...

How in the world do you ever expect to get anywhere with that ?


LOL ...

Barf,

You've just been owned ...

Fox News is very, very white. The fact that Fox News has a small handful of black reporters
you mean to say the world is not----very very white. O-No.

 

[muttly]

Yes I did say that. And I said that because that's what it says at the Fox News website. That's what "according to the Fox News website" means.

AND, like I ALSO said, "If you feel these numbers don't accurately reflect what is on Fox News, then you need to take it up with Fox News directly."

Dude, it's on the website. The black news anchors that have shows. Why would I take it up with Fox News when it is already on their website?I am merely informing you that there are multiple black anchors that host and co host shows.

 

[muttly]

But ya gotta admit, it is pretty hilarious.

It's kinda like watching someone try to use a dangerous power tool that they really aren't competent with ...

The comedic possibilities are nearly infinite ...


No ... he clearly doesn't know ...


But, but , but ... you don't understand: it's Fox News ... The Oracle Of The Divine "Conservative" Truth ...

Chuckling at the expense of The Oracle is tantamount to blasphemy ...

Lentil Poup, distorted the truth.
Lentil posted a picture of ALL white people in a photograph that omitted the blacks who work there.
Not an accurate depiction of Fox News.
Accuracy and integrity isn't your strong suit.
Yes, you didn't created it, but you posted it. Own it bro,like a man.

 

[muttly]

You don't even know who it is, but by gum you're gonna take it with a grain of salt. But no, the information did not originate at Media Matters.


What part of "according to the Fox News website" are you having the most difficulty with? Perhaps I can help.

The media matters(which you stated wasn't, but you didn't provide link) reference is in regard to whatever source you used to tally up the time blacks are on the air at Fox News. I wasn't referring to the Fox News link with regards to the air time of the black anchors that report the news. I was questioning the data from your other unknown source.Your post obviously has information from TWO links, but you only provided the Fox website link.

 

[RLENT]

Lentil Poup, distorted the truth.

Junior,

You clearly can't handle the truth ... as evidenced by your rabid, fanatical defense of Faux News ...

Lentil posted a picture of ALL white people in a photograph that omitted the blacks who work there.

Yeah ... so ?

Fact is, a number of folks in that picture opine regularly on matters of race ...

In case you missed it (highly likely) the point of the graphic was

... white people who tell others that racism (against people of color) doesn't exist ...

Not an accurate depiction of Fox News.

While it may not be a complete depiction of Faux News, it is certainly an accurate one ... on a general, overall basis ...

Unless of course you'd care to point out all the folks in that picture that do not (or have not) worked @ Faux News ...

Can you even come up with a single one ?

Accuracy and integrity isn't your strong suit.

Well there Ace, considering your historical track record in the accuracy and integrity departments, you leveling that charge isn't something I find particularly disturbing ...

Quite frankly, it's really just more comedy ... something you seem particularly well suited for and talented at ... all without even without trying ...

Yes, you didn't created it, but you posted it. Own it bro,like a man.

LOL ... I'm not trying to disown the fact that I posted it ... so it looks like you're starting from an incorrect assumption/conclusion ... which likely stems from an incorrect observation ...

Something you seem to have a peculiar talent for ... lol ....

 

[muttly]

A picture lacking minorities cannot be "factually untrue" ... unless there is also a caption which states that the picture is a complete representation of something that is alleged to be depicted ...

And even then, it wouldn't be the picture that was "factually untrue" ... but rather the caption ...


Well, since you been recently schooled as to the difference between an implication and an inference I don't see any need to go over that again ... unless of course you still have a confusion about it ...

But to address your point, why couldn't it be that the implication is ... that Fox News on a general basis is largely white (and blonde) ... and so it is rather ironic that they would choose to opine on whether racism against "people of color" exists or not ...

That is at least as plausible and potentially as valid as what you offered up.


Now this is exactly a prime example of what Turtle was talking about earlier: you read something which actually says one thing ... and then divine an entirely different meaning than what is actually there ...

I said absolutely nothing about what I was looking for ... just that most normal (sane) folks - who are not fanatical, partisan extremists - would get a chuckle out of the graphic.

Because, you know: it's true ...

ROTFLMAO ...

The implication of the photo wasn't that they're GENERALLY WHITE. The photo contains ALL WHITES. Why would someone reach the conclusion they are generally white when the photo doesn't include one black in it?
It's a distortion of the true makeup of who works at Fox News.

I do chuckle at your continued dishonesty and distortions though. Makes good humor.

 

[muttly]

Junior,

You clearly can't handle the truth ... as evidenced by your rabid, fanatical defense of Faux News ...


Yeah ... so ?

Fact is, a number of folks in that picture opine regularly on matters of race ...

In case you missed it (highly likely) the point of the graphic was

... white people who tell others that racism (against people of color) doesn't exist ...


While it may not be a complete depiction of Faux News, it is certainly an accurate one ... on a general, overall basis ...

Unless of course you'd care to point out all the folks in that picture that do not (or have not) worked @ Faux News ...

Can you even come up with a single one ?


Well there Ace, considering your historical track record in the accuracy and integrity departments, you leveling that charge isn't something I find particularly disturbing ...

Quite frankly, it's really just more comedy ... something you seem particularly well suited for and talented at ... all without even without trying ...


LOL ... I'm not trying to disown the fact that I posted it ... so it looks like you're starting from an incorrect assumption/conclusion ... which likely stems from an incorrect observation ...

Something you seem to have a peculiar talent for ... lol ....

Lentil, I'm not disputing that someone in the picture didn't work for Fox News. That is not my contention. It is completely irrelevant diversion. It is the compete omission of blacks in the picture. It depicted Fox News as ALL WHITE.
Fact is there are many blacks who appear on Fox News that opine about race. NOT ONE appeared in that photo.

 

[muttly]

But that is what makes this so fun ...


Now you're talking facts and common sense ...

How in the world do you ever expect to get anywhere with that ?


LOL ...

Barf,

You've just been owned ...

I didn't get owned. I pointed out that the photo was an inaccurate and dishonest depiction of Fox News. I never claimed they didn't have mostly whites that work there. I also gave my opinions, and gave plausible reasons about why there isn't more that work there. Try to refute them if you want.
One reason--
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/juan-wil...l-uncle-tom-treatment-of-black-conservatives/
I merely posted an article ( from Fox News) about comments Rudy Giuliani made and this thread has morphed into a Fox News thread.

 

[Turtle]

The media matters(which you stated wasn't, but you didn't provide link) reference is in regard to whatever source you used to tally up the time blacks are on the air at Fox News. I wasn't referring to the Fox News link with regards to the air time of the black anchors that report the news. I was questioning the data from your other unknown source.Your post obviously has information from TWO links, but you only provided the Fox website link.

It may be obvious to you that the information came from two sources, but it came from four different sources.

 

[Pilgrim]

Mr Pilgrim's account of Ferguson is every bit as "factually inaccurate by omission" as any he singles out for ridicule, because he leaves some important [contextual] details out as well.

Which are...??

History, being written by the victors, has been especially 'kind' to the white Europeans who founded the US, and to the black & brown people, not so much. And the conservatives in Texas are fighting to have the history and sociology textbooks do an even bigger 'whitewash' right now. And they're winning.

This story came out about a year ago on several national news networks, and would be a great subject for its own thread. Maybe you could start it with commentary from the liberal viewpoint. Anyone with kids in elementary or middle school would be wise to be aware of what going on with the process of school textbook development and how it works. Are the conservatives "winning" or preserving the historical facts?

 

[Pilgrim]

They, and I, fully understand that a "lie by omission" is an actual thing in certain contexts, as is an "omission of facts in arguments." We also understand that a "lie by omission" and an "omission of facts in arguments" are two different things, and neither one can equate to "factually inaccurate by omission," which isn't a thing.

Of course it's not a "thing" - it's a concept. The dots between "Lie by omission" and "factually inaccurate by omission" are pretty easy to connect - at least for most people. But if you and your klatch of self-declared intelligentsia want to nitpick the semantics, knock yourselves out. In many instances it's called FRAUD, as previously mentioned. Try selling a truck to somebody, neglecting to mention that a new odometer has been installed showing half the actual mileage on the vehicle. Better yet, a college basketball coach gets hired, signing a memorandum of understanding establishing the terms of his employment with his new university; he neglects to tell them about the recruiting violations that he committed and may be forthcoming due to his sleazy recruiting practices in his recent past. The memorandum is "factually inaccurate by omission" of facts unknown to all of the parties involved. Sorry, but there's no legitimate defense to the basic premise of this article, which is summarized in this excerpt (emphasis mine):

The murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Sam Shepherd, and countless thousands of others at the hands of American law enforcement are not aberrations, or betrayals, or departures. The acquittals of their killers are not mistakes. There is no virtuous innermost America, sullied or besmirched or shaded by these murders. This is America.

The author can't support this gratuitous assertion because he's a liberal hack, obviously ignorant of law enforcement realities in this country. He ignores the fact that most of these so-called atrocities happened to black men while they were resisting arrest. Notice he offers no statistics to support his claim of "countless thousands" of instances of racial injustice at the hands of law enforcement. Notice also he doesn't bother to mention the disparity of black crime rates, or the number of black on black homicides - evidently that's not a problem in his worldview. Notice that he ignores the black hate crimes which rarely get prosecuted like the "knockout games" committed against defenseless whites, Jews and Asians. Notice also that he ignores the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the racial preference laws like Affirmative Action and the racial quotas imposed on universities and businesses that depend on any kind of govt subsidies or contracts. Hopefully this guy is a better food critic than social commentator, because he obviously doesn't know his azz from asparagus when it comes to the American legal system.

 

[RLENT]

I didn't get owned.

Here, let me help you:

O-W-N-E-D ... with a dog collar ... and a leash ...

I pointed out that the photo was an inaccurate and dishonest depiction of Fox News.

Yeah ... the only problem with that is that the graphic (it's not a photo but rather a composite image .... made up of multiple photos and other elements) isn't really intended to be a complete depiction of the entirety of Faux News.

It's an editorial comment ... which some, in their infinite stupidity, have sought to treat as though it were somehow being submitted as an entry for inclusion in The World Book Encyclopedia ...

I never claimed they didn't have mostly whites that work there.

Well ... thank goodness for the occasional "bridge too far" ...

I also gave my opinions, and gave plausible reasons about why there isn't more that work there. Try to refute them if you want.

Why in the world would I ever allow you to divert yet further off the actual issue being addressed and sidetrack me into irrelevant minutiae ?

I merely posted an article (from Fox News) about comments Rudy Giuliani made and this thread has morphed into a Fox News thread.

Yes ... largely because of your rabid, knee-jerk reaction to an editorial image I posted ...

You just couldn't tolerate my pointing out the irony of a bunch of privileged (largely blonde) honkies repeatedly pooh-pooh'ing the idea that racial bias still exists in America ...

FWIW, by my observation, those who vocally and vociferously resist acknowledging that reality, tend to be be some of the biggest racists of all ...

Just for the record, I'm inclined to agree with Turtle that everybody (including myself) is racist to some degree or another.

That racism - to the extent that it exists - takes a variety of forms, from the relatively innocent and innocuous to the really, really ugly ... is motivated by a variety of factors ... (again some of it relatively innocent and innocuous ... and some of it really, really ugly ...)

It is certainly true that any racial community bears some degree of responsibility for their own condition and circumstances ... however that is not to say that everyone else doesn't also have a degree of responsibility as well.

Those who deny any and all responsibility - and are unwilling to acknowledge historical and present realities - are simply seeking to avoid culpability.

One can divine much about people's motivations from the tone with which people address the issue ...

(... and some folks participating in this thread would be smart and do well to take note of the last sentence, immediately above ...)

 

[RLENT]

Again, the OP in this thread says much ... and clearly illustrates just exactly how far someone have their head up their rectal cavity in regards to the issue of race ...

Since the nation is on the subject about innocent black kids being shot for no reason, why aren't Al & Jessie in Cleveland raising h*ll about this? Here is an actual case of an innocent 12-year old kid being shot and killed by a stupid rookie cop, while a community in St. Louis is being destroyed due to the shooting of an adult criminal who committed a robbery and assaulted a police officer?

12-year-old boy shot by Cleveland police has died | cleveland.com

Several articles relate the same facts of this incident, but none of them mention the race (or name, or address) of the officer who shot and killed the 12-year old boy. Would anyone care to guess...Buhler...anyone??
​

Pulaski ... you go girl ... for your exemplary representation of the typical devoted Faux News fan !

 

[RLENT]

That's what is the most hilarious. The harder he tries to refute most of this stuff, the more he just confirms it. And doesn't even realize it.

Yup ... totally clueless.

One of my more recent favorites is where he was instantly prepared, much like the very predictable conditioned response of Pavlov's Dog, and then plunged right ahead in fine logical fallacy fashion, to discredit the data by citing its highly biased and questionable source, despite not knowing what the source was, and having to fill in that blank with an invented assumption, in spite of being told right up front what the source was.

See this? It's a green Granny Smith apple that I picked right from the apple tree.

Well, you know, uhm, there are lots of reasons why it looks green, but it might not be. It might be yellow but it just has a green tint to it. And even though Fuji apples don't look like that, it's probably a Fuji apple. Yeah, definitely. Definitely a Fuji. 'Course if you got that from a pear tree then it's not an apple. No. No. Definitely not. It's a Fuji pear. A yellow one. I like to drive slow on the driveway. 'Course it's three minutes to Wapner.

Yeah ... 'ceptin' Barf ain't no savant of any sort, far as I can tell ...

 

[RLENT]

It may be obvious to you that the information came from two sources, but it came from four different sources.

Rather telling ... as far as someone's abilities to correctly observe, and then draw accurate conclusions ...

If he's jumping to such unwarranted conclusions on this, it really makes one wonder what other "conclusions" of his are similarly flawed ...

 

[RLENT]

The implication of the photo wasn't that they're GENERALLY WHITE.

Ahh ... I see that you are still suffering from the cornfusion on the implication/inference thing.

Well ... good luck with that.

The photo contains ALL WHITES.

And all blondes ...

Why would someone reach the conclusion they are generally white when the photo doesn't include one black in it?

I dunno ... actual personal observation of the channel and it's programming mebbe ?

Worked for me ... although I do realize that accurate observation is a hill that some seem incapable of conquering ...

It's a distortion of the true makeup of who works at Fox News.

It isn't intended to be a depiction of the "true makeup of who works at Fox News" ... (that's your additive)

Something that anyone who isn't a complete blithering idiot ought to be able to divine ... from simple common sense, if not direct personal observation ...

I do chuckle at your continued dishonesty and distortions though.

I'm not being dishonest or distorting anything.

Makes good humor.

Barf,

You really need to get a better toolbox.

While I am flattered at the emulation, you really need to come up with own material ...

Of course, if copy-catting is all you can manage, I think most will understand ...

 

[RLENT]

Lentil, I'm not disputing that someone in the picture didn't work for Fox News. That is not my contention.

Then the graphic is accurate ... at least to the extent that it depicts people who do work for Fox News ...

It is completely irrelevant diversion. It is the compete omission of blacks in the picture. It depicted Fox News as ALL WHITE.

Where specifically is the claim that Faux News is ALL WHITE made in the accompanying captioning ?

It isn't ...

You see, that's something YOU added ... you inferred it.

Anyone who has a minimal passing familiarity with the various major personalities on Faux knows that the graphic isn't even a complete representation of all on-air personalities, let alone everyone who works there ...

Fact is there are many blacks who appear on Fox News that opine about race.

Ahh ... no ...

Stop reinventing the meaning of words to suit your ideology.

I just had a right-wing idiot on another forum redefine "many" to mean five (5) this morning ... and I have no patience or tolerance for such stupidity.

I understand that's what you want to tell yourself, as it's self-affirming ... but, as a relative matter, it's simply not accurate, as the statistics cited by Turtle demonstrate.

Your perception of "many blacks" is no doubt modified by where you are looking from (the viewpoint of a white person)