BF2S Forums The Channon Christian-Christopher Newsom Murders

ATG wrote:

While you make some excellent points it seems you fail to acknowledge the possibility that because of liberal white guilt over the legitimate mistreatment of blacks generally ending in the 60's there is a urge to overlook horrific crimes in the allegedly liberal dominated press.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

Ok, so whats your opinion on why no Major News Media has touched this story? And what exactly does seeing a black couple arguing on Cops have to do with it? Thats fuckin' Cops, not the National Media. This isn't a 'White people are oppressed because they only mention their crimes on the News, as opposed to black crimes, which never get mentioned' thread.

No, it looks a lot more like a "I read on the internets that a handful of specific crimes haven't recieved national attention so that means there's a concerted effort by Jesse Jackson and the ACLU to cover them up" thread. The central premise seems to be that because this ONE story hasn't been blasted across the screen of every television across the country every hour on the hour, there's a sinister conspiracy to hide black-on-white crimes from public view. Somehow a national news media that not only has no problem showing black perps all the time, helped spread false stories of black perps as in the Charles Stuart or Susan Smith cases and deluged us with phony horror stories about barbaric behavior among refugees from Hurrican Katrina is supposedly shying away from this one story solely because this perp is black and the victims are white.

mKmalfunction wrote:

On CNN, or MSNBC, FOX News, etcetera, you often find stories of white on black violence. But you never hear of black on white violence, even when the crime is this horrorific.

The two cases I mentioned above recieved national attention long before it became known that the actual perpetrators were lying. That's why you have to be careful about using qualifiers like "never" when trying to make a point in a debate.

mKmalfunction wrote:

And who said anything about crying over not being able to use racial slurs? No ones even mentioned those. Oh, thats right, you're pulling shit out of your ass to try to make us look like ignorant racists. You fail.

ZOMG I FAIL. Truly you have slain me with your overused internet meme. Maybe you should try paying attention to your own thread, it's full of totally bullshit unproveable statements about how Jesse Jackson and his PC Posse are the reason this story isn't getting any play, the same kind of whiny-ass entitlement mentality crap as "Hey, they use it, why can't I call them niggers/fags/dykes/etc.".  Nobody saying that shit really needs my help to look like an ignorant racist.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Also, I don't have a societal status, I'm broke, and I'm sure people don't get the greatest first impression from me either. (Unshaven, wild hair, etc.) So don't give me that 'Oh you're white and you have a million opportunities and a trust fund, while all blacks live in ghettos and can't get into College without a hand out' bullshit.

Broke and unshaven with wild hair, yeah, I got no idea what that's like. Try broke and unshaven with wild hair, facial piercings and leather jacket covered with spikes and skulls. But see unlike you I can admit that if I cut my hair, shave, cover up the holes in my flesh and pick up a nice button-down shirt and a pair of khakis from Goodwill people aren't going to cross the street to avoid me. Store security isn't going to follow me around when I go to Fred Meyer's. People won't automatically lock their car doors when I walk by. Employers won't assume I'm just some hood rat who cleaned up for one day to try and fool them into hiring me. In other words, with very little work at all I can alter my appearance slightly and completely blend into the background of society without anyone around me giving me a second glance. That's because the aspects of my appearance that cause "regular" folks to look at me suspiciously are easily changed. Same for you. Sure, it pisses me off that people can't look past my exterior but I do not put myself in the same category with anyone who has an aspect of their physical appearance that causes people to automatically assume negative things about them that they cannot realistically change. I look the way I do because I choose to; I wasn't born with tattoos and a silver claw in my earlobe. I'm pretty sure you weren't born with a full beard either. So no, neither of us have "a million opportunities and a trust fund", we have one opportunity they cannot have at this point: we were born with a skin color that ignorant fools don't automatically associate with criminal behavior.

This was a truly horrific crime. What's even more sickening about is is seeing the ghouls that are swinging the corpses of these two innocent people around, trying to prove some point about how the liberal media and the PC police are trying to cover up the savagery of blacks towards whites while blabbering about how it's not racism, it's just truth. This stinks exactly like the manufactured outrage about the Jesse Dirkhising case and how his death was used to try and prove a point about homosexuals even though the perps in that case were obviously pedophiles who would have just as readily abused and murdered a young girl. If they had, the case would've been ignored. Just like this one would be ignored by you if the demographics were different. Your conditional outrage is not impressive, it's just sad and pathetic.

Bubbalo wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

It is dude. It's easier to play on peoples emotions when a pretty young white blond girl goes missing than it is when her less attractive counterparts do.

The person in the pic fits that description.

Bubbalo wrote:

TBH, I think they didn't talk about it because people are squeemish and would have changed channels.

mKmalfunction wrote:

First off, I never said that there was a conspiracy led by Jesse Jackson. I simply agreed that if this had gotten more mainstream media attention, that black leaders would be defending them.

mKmalfunction wrote:

One has, citing the Emmit Till murder as justification for this. No joke.

mKmalfunction wrote:

If you can't acknowledge the fact that if the victims had been black, and the perps white, that this would've gotten more attention, than its my opinion that you have some sort of wool over your eyes.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Or perhaps I'm just a bigoted moron?

mKmalfunction wrote:

As for the fail comment, I made an error, and it should have read 'you failed.' Regardless, your personnel attack has 'failed' to offend me.

mKmalfunction wrote:

And again you bring up racial slurs. Thats not what we're discussing, yet you keep coming back to it. Since you want to keep bringing it up, I don't have the mentality of wanting to say 'nigga' as I'm not really into rap, and I don't care if blacks use it. But I do say 'fag' alot, but thats another thread all together cupcake.

mKmalfunction wrote:

As for the 'all blacks are deemed criminals' bullshit, I see alot of employed black people. They're doctors, policemen, lawyers, cooks, sales people, etc. etc. If the majority of people had these perceptions, how did they get their jobs? Exactly.

mKmalfunction wrote:

I'm glad to see you acknowledge the brutality of this crime. But to say that my outrage is conditional is a hefty assumption. I'm outraged whenever I hear about innocent people being killed. My sympathy for these two young lives would be the same if the perps had been white, but that wouldn't have brought up my original question, as to why the media prefers white on black crimes, as opposed to black on white crimes.

mKmalfunction wrote:

If you had bothered paying attention to my other post, you would know that I never denied seeing reports of black crime on the news, only that the cases were black on black.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Perhaps the reason the media doesn't portray black on white crime is they fear white retaliation against innocent blacks?

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

First off, I never said that there was a conspiracy led by Jesse Jackson. I simply agreed that if this had gotten more mainstream media attention, that black leaders would be defending them.

And I never claimed you said that. I said your thread was full of wild hysterical nonsense about Jesse Jackson, the ACLU and such and how they were some looming threat that the media supposedly quakes in fear of.

mKmalfunction wrote:

One has, citing the Emmit Till murder as justification for this. No joke.

Who is it exactly that's called for automatically defending black people who victimize white people based on Emmet Till's death?

mKmalfunction wrote:

If you can't acknowledge the fact that if the victims had been black, and the perps white, that this would've gotten more attention, than its my opinion that you have some sort of wool over your eyes.

Facts are normally backed up with proof. One case is not proof. Second- or third-hand anecdotes are not proof. "It's a fact because I say it is" is not proof. What you have here is an opinion, not a fact. You haven't even bothered to try and dress it up like a fact, let alone tried to prove it's a fact.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Or perhaps I'm just a bigoted moron?

I don't know you well enough to be sure. You certainly speak their language though.

mKmalfunction wrote:

As for the fail comment, I made an error, and it should have read 'you failed.' Regardless, your personnel attack has 'failed' to offend me.

I haven't been making a personal attack against you, I'm speaking to everybody in this thread espousing this "the minority's holdin' me back, man" nonsense. It ain't all about you by a long shot.

mKmalfunction wrote:

And again you bring up racial slurs. Thats not what we're discussing, yet you keep coming back to it. Since you want to keep bringing it up, I don't have the mentality of wanting to say 'nigga' as I'm not really into rap, and I don't care if blacks use it. But I do say 'fag' alot, but thats another thread all together cupcake.

I've explained this twice now, maybe third time's the charm. It's part and parcel of the same attitude that claims the media is afraid to show black criminals with white victims but doesn't seem very forthcoming with any concrete examples of this happening, just some nonsense about one story not going national. I confess to being totally unamazed that you use "fag" a lot.

mKmalfunction wrote:

As for the 'all blacks are deemed criminals' bullshit, I see alot of employed black people. They're doctors, policemen, lawyers, cooks, sales people, etc. etc. If the majority of people had these perceptions, how did they get their jobs? Exactly.

If you ask them, I'll bet most will tell you they did it by either busting ass twice as hard as their white counterparts, finding an employer who clearly and openly didn't give a flying shit about their skin color or finding employment within their own community where their skin color either didn't matter or was an asset. I doubt many of them are of the opinion that discrimination magically no longer exists because people like you keep saying "Shit, your people are in the workforce, STFU about discrimination all ready".

mKmalfunction wrote:

I'm glad to see you acknowledge the brutality of this crime. But to say that my outrage is conditional is a hefty assumption. I'm outraged whenever I hear about innocent people being killed. My sympathy for these two young lives would be the same if the perps had been white, but that wouldn't have brought up my original question, as to why the media prefers white on black crimes, as opposed to black on white crimes.

Until you can give some kind of proof that the media prefers reporting white on black crimes as opposed to black on white crimes, I'd say we're both engaging in assumption.

mKmalfunction wrote:

If you had bothered paying attention to my other post, you would know that I never denied seeing reports of black crime on the news, only that the cases were black on black.

And if you were paying attention to mine, you'd have realized that one, I'm not just attacking you, and two, I gave you two cases off the top of my head that immediately went national regarding black on white crime. Granted, the actual perpetrators in those cases were lying about who did it, but the news media had no problem reporting that random evil black men were shooting women in the head and kidnapping carloads of kids during carjackings. Just because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you a third case in a similar vein: the Central Park Jogger case. One white woman supposedly beaten and raped by a group of black men. That was national news for over a year. The follow-up later on that found they'd been railroaded by police and the NYC prosecutor's office and that the real perp was a repeat sex offender that'd been released from prison was not national news, however. Most people who remember that case probably don't even know how it all ended up.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Perhaps the reason the media doesn't portray black on white crime is they fear white retaliation against innocent blacks?

I sincerely doubt the media actually gives a damn about anything but ratings and ad revenue. What they report on is directly affected by those two factors.